National bankruptcy, then, is among the existential threats to the republic, the prospect that we will find ourselves in the not-too-distant future in the same boat with Greece, Puerto Rico and Illinois.

Yet, we drift toward the falls, with the issue not debated.

Ernest Hemingway reminded us of how nations escape quagmires of debt: “The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.”

“Debauching the currency,” Lenin’s depiction, is the way we will probably destroy the debt monster.

Hemingway’s second option, war, appears to be the preferred option of the war chiefs of the Beltway’s think-tank archipelago, who see in any Putin move in the Baltic or Black Sea casus belli.

What our Cold War leaders kept ever in mind, and our War Party scribblers never learned, is the lesson British historian A. J. P. Taylor discovered from studying the Thirty Years War of 1914-1945:

“Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one.”

Another existential threat, if Western man still sees himself as the custodian of the world’s greatest civilization, and one yet worth preserving, is the Third-Worldization of the West.

The threat emanates from two factors: The demographic death of the native-born of all Western nations by century’s end, given their fertility rates, and the seemingly endless invasion of the West from Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

Concerning the demographic decline and displacement of Western man by peoples of other creeds, cultures, countries, continents and civilizations, there is an ideological clash within the West.

Some among our elites are rhapsodic at the change. Worshiping at the altars of diversity and equality, they see acquiescing in the invasion of their own countries as a mark of moral superiority.

Angela Merkel speaks for them, or did, up to a while ago.

To those who believe diversity — racial, ethnic, religious, cultural — is to be cherished and embraced, resistance to demographic change in the West is seen as a mark of moral retardation.

Opponents of immigration are hence subjects of abuse — labeled “racists,” “xenophobes,” “fascists,” “Nazis” and other terms of odium in the rich vocabulary of Progressive hatred.

Yet, opposition to the invasion from across the Med and the Rio Grande is not only propelling the Trump movement but generating rightist parties and movements across the Old Continent.

It is hard to see how this crisis resolves itself peacefully.

For the hundreds of millions living in Third World tyranny and misery are growing, as is their willingness to risk their lives to reach Europe. And national resistance is not going to dissipate as the illegal immigrants and refugees come in growing numbers.

What the resisters see as imperiled is what they treasure most, their countries, cultures, way of life and the future they wish to leave their children. These are things for which men have always fought.

And, in America, is diversity leading to greater unity, or to greater rancor, separatism and disintegration? Did anyone imagine that, 50 years after the civil rights laws, we would still be having long hot summers in Ferguson, Baltimore and Milwaukee?

The crisis that South Carolina statesman John C. Calhoun had posthumously predicted in his “Disquisition on Government” has also come to pass.

The country would divide into two parties, Calhoun said. One would be the party of those who pay the taxes to government, the other the party of those who consume the benefits of government.

The taxpayers’ party would engage in constant clashes with the party of the tax-consumers.

In 2013, the top 1 percent of Americans in income paid 38 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of income-earners, half the nation, paid only 3 percent of all income taxes.

A question logically follows: If one belongs to that third of the nation that pays no income taxes but receives copious benefits, why would you vote for a party that will cut taxes you don’t pay, but take away benefits you do receive?

Traditional Republican platforms ask half the country to vote against its economic interests. As a long-term political strategy, that is not too promising.

During the New Deal, FDR’s aide Harold Ickes, declared in what became party dogma, “We shall tax and tax, spend and spend, and elect and elect.”

And so they did, and so they do. But this is a game that cannot go on forever.

For, as John Adams reminded us, “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

One of the best analytical columns that I’ve ever read-Pat Buchanan has put the spotlight on the potential destruction of the West. And he’s done it much more succinctly than the Raspail novel
“Camp of the Saints”.

Can't believe I am reading Pat Buchanan of all people. he was already old when i was still young. Still though, way more than 50 percent of the public would be voting against their economic interests to go republican.

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Look at the Brits. At one point, they were sore about losing Hong Kong back to the Chinese.
They were awful proud of what they’d done with HK while Mao drove China to the ground.
But in the end, as agreed in the contract, the Brits turned over rich HK to mainland China.
In a way, it was only right because HK is made up of Chinese.

That was then, this is now.
Today, the Brits do NOTHING even when they are losing London, their own capital, to the Third World and globalist financiers.

I mean losing a Chinese city to the Chinese was one thing.
But losing your own great city to the Third World horde and Globalist cabal?

This is the mental state of the white world. It’s beyond talking logic and sense to it.

It seems to be one of the banes of having, or merely the feeling of having, a few more bucks than the next guy no matter how they're obtained. It never ceases to astonish me how arrogant folks can get if they think they have more than the next guy, or even if they're merely acquainted with someone who appears wealthy.

And it does seem to make their ignorance utterly impermeable to reason.

“Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one.”

That’s true of a nation like Great Britain.

There were three kinds of great powers in the 20th century.

The great land powers. US, China, Russia. Brazil and Argentina have the potential of becoming great land powers. India too. But too many low IQ people and/or a culture of mess.
The great land powers can suffer setbacks and come back. They still got the people and land even when they lose. Look how China went through hell in 20th century but still came back.

Then, there were mid-sized near-great or great powers like Germany and Japan. They had sizable people but their land was limited. Both tried to expand by taking over already populated lands, Russia and China. It proved to be their downfall. When these nations fight wars and suffer huge setback, they are finished. Japan and Germany are finished as great powers. They are just economic engines.

And then, you got the great powers via overseas empires. Brits, French, and Spanish. But such are vulnerable. For one thing, the natives might one day rise up, which is what happened. Also, even the colonies of imperialists may seek independence, like all the Anglo and Hispanic imperial nations eventually did. Such empires are vulnerable to war and defeat.

It also depends on a range of circumstances that amount to whether one is on the rise or decline [these terms are meant only as catch-alls] and whether one uses all the tools of power well.

France intervened in the 30 years war in a timely way and for secular reasons, on the protestant side, to keep the war going and undermine its Habsburg Spanish and Austrian enemies. France was already a great power. by using the opportunity the German war presented, France undermined its enemies and enhanced its own power greatly.

France frittered away a good deal of that in Louis XIV's endless series of wars. On the other hand, it was still the dominant military, economic and demographic power of Europe in 1715, had actually achieved the goal of his last war [put his grandson on the Spanish throne while keeping most of the Spanish empire intact] and make Spain at minimum an ally and often a puppet. Although he had to make concessions to Austria, and did not break Austria, he had removed the Habsburg axis encircling France and moved France to a position of power-parity with Austria in the German world. France didn't really get its ass handed to it strategically or start to exceed its resources until the 7 years war. That's nearly a century of great power war before France started its downward slide.

Britain could be said to be one of the great powers by the time of the 1707 Union, and was already fighting the French at sea on equal terms and on land with success as the equal partner to the Austrians [fewer ground troops, but monetary subsidy]. Britain continued managing the next century of great power war not only able to do so within its resources, but enhancing its power. Even the loss of America did not provide a strategic disadvantage until a century afterward. Certainly it did not impede Britain's capacity to engage in and subsidize half of Europe in 20 years of war against France 1793-1815 [these being the wars that finally broke France's capacity to stay on top, but enhanced Britain's.]

France was broken when its archaic financial system proved unequal to its victory in the American war, but the revolution and serious administrative reform in short order produced a France briefly able to wildly exceed Louis XIV's dreams, taking on all of Europe by land and, briefly, by sea, and within a hair's breadth of finding some diplomatic and ideological suite that could cement it on top of European civilization. Failing that, sure, it had exceeded its carrying capacity by the end and never quite recovered. It did stay in the ranks of great powers for over a century more, though, if it isn't still.

Britain failed when its hitherto far superior financial system operating in a more mature world economy proved unequal to a more costly kind of war than ever before faced, at the same time as it had for the first time to put a continental-scale army in the field for the duration and take [along with the others] unprecedented losses. Even then Britain's fall wasn't guaranteed to take it out of the first rank [it was already behind the US at the top by 1914] if there hadn't been another even bigger and more costly war so soon.

Even poor Spain, a country so poor that it should never have been a great power at all, and whose almost magic possession of an empire was its ultimate undoing, nevertheless capitalized on that empire's wealth long enough to be the leading power for a century, and it still was so well into the 30 years war after having fought, with indifferent success, many previous major wars. And even its decline took it over a century to fall out of the ranks of great powers.

Those are all pretty good runs by any standards, certainly compared to the US to date.

And even looking at the US, it has fought at least 1.3 'great wars' successfully and decisively [that's citing its participation in the world wars] and ended up with its power enhanced after both, the latter decisively so. It hasn't fought such a war since. If it is laid low by its failure in recent expeditionary wars, that would be the equivalent of Britain being knocked off its perch by Crimea, South Africa, the Indian Mutiny, or indeed the endless wars of the Indian frontier.

To those who believe diversity — racial, ethnic, religious, cultural — is to be cherished and embraced, resistance to demographic change in the West is seen as a mark of moral retardation.”

I have a solution that is win-win for everyone, and I mean everyone.

We are told that the rich West should share with poor Third World.
We are told that diversity is wonderful.
We also know that some people are ‘natural conservatives’ and don’t like Diversity.

Okay, here’s a solution that is win-win for white libs, white cons, and third world.

All white libs move with all their wealth to third world.

That way, white libs will share their wealth with third world folks.

Also, white libs will enjoy instant diversity. They won’t have to wait for their native lands to become white-minority. They can enjoy white-minority status immediately by moving to Third World. Wonderful!! That’s what they say they want.

As for white cons remaining in the West, they get to enjoy homogeneity and harmony.

All sides win. Third World folks get to share in wealth brought by white libs.
White libs get diversity, a lot of it.
White cons get homogeneity.

What’s not to like?

If white libs want Diversity, they should get it for themselves by moving to the Third World. They should not force it on white natural conservatives.

“Did anyone imagine that, 50 years after the civil rights laws, we would still be having long hot summers in Ferguson, Baltimore and Milwaukee?”

That is not a Diversity problem. That is a mono-black problem.

Libs use Diversity as buffer between themselves and blacks. Diversity works at least in cushioning whites from blacks.

I think maybe Merkel was enthused about Syrians because better to have Muslims and Arabs than black Africans.

“In 2013, the top 1 percent of Americans in income paid 38 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of income-earners, half the nation, paid only 3 percent of all income taxes.”

But globalism made the top 1% grab just about everything. So, it’s only right. I say tax the rich at 90%.

“The taxpayers’ party would engage in constant clashes with the party of the tax-consumers.”

It’s frustrating to see a good column go bad; especially frustrating when its author does this simply because he avoids using his own arguments. The reason why there is such an alleged lack of taxpaying among these people is due to another of Buchanan’s criticisms: “free” trade and shipping American jobs overseas. This column avoids talking about the defense and corporate tax consumers, who arguably are co-creators of the middle and lower classes of tax consumers. Yes, our poor and formerly-middle class tax consumers are going to vote to keep government support. because it’s the only option left after their livelihoods have been destroyed.

Buchanan has consistently written about the effects of globalism and trade agreements. He's only allowed so much column space and he filled it dealing with other issues that affect the country. He'll be back on the effects of trade agreements soon enough.

"The taxpayers’ party would engage in constant clashes with the party of the tax-consumers."

It's frustrating to see a good column go bad; especially frustrating when its author does this simply because he avoids using his own arguments. The reason why there is such an alleged lack of taxpaying among these people is due to another of Buchanan's criticisms: "free" trade and shipping American jobs overseas. This column avoids talking about the defense and corporate tax consumers, who arguably are co-creators of the middle and lower classes of tax consumers. Yes, our poor and formerly-middle class tax consumers are going to vote to keep government support. because it's the only option left after their livelihoods have been destroyed.

Buchanan has consistently written about the effects of globalism and trade agreements. He’s only allowed so much column space and he filled it dealing with other issues that affect the country. He’ll be back on the effects of trade agreements soon enough.

“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.” — Churchill’s remark after Chamberlain returned from signing the Munich Pact with Hitler

There is no way to avoid the financial catastrophe ahead of us, the money has been spent (or obligated) and the piper must be paid. We do have a choice of facing the difficulty honestly and preparing for the inevitable wars that will follow or continuing to pretend that the pain can be avoided and being unprepared when war comes upon us like a thief in the night.

The mass of humanity will always choose to avoid facing pain. This promises to be a very interesting century.

The mass of humanity behaves as a herd, and the herd following predictable cycles.

The only thing not (entirely) predictable was the height to which this unholy marriage of monetary-system madness and pathological optimism could be flogged.

Today we have a world addicted to:
1. Using debt to create the illusion of having wealth while consuming it, too.
2. Pulling future consumption into the present.
3. Ignoring the fact that future wealth production requires capital maintenance today.
4. Believing that a promise to be paid $10 in ten years is the same as having $10 today (in terms of purchasing power.)

Excess debt will be defaulted upon or its value will collapse as interest rates must eventually rise. The real issue is that so much of what we take for granted today rests on the perception of astronomical wealth sitting in that Ocean of IOU's.

Inevitable defaults and rate increases will have the effect of evaporating vast quantities of the "wealth" now believed to exist in that Bond Ocean. Once the process finally begins, any attempts to re-fill the Ocean (with new credit/borrowing) will have the paradoxical effect of increasing the evaporation of wealth.

Either the brilliant minds working for the Fed know this (and are preparing their bomb shelters for when this Vast Game of Chicken ends) or they are so smart they're utter morons.

Life will go on (for most), but the earthquakes that come from this inevitable collapse in wealth will shake cities to the ground in ashes and cast many of the mighty into oblivion.

Churchill was a warmonger. There are too many examples of his blind commitment to military solutions to solve England's "challenges" to go into here. When WW II ended, his beloved England had lost it's status as a world power. When will the blind hero worship of him end?

To those who believe diversity — racial, ethnic, religious, cultural — is to be cherished and embraced, resistance to demographic change in the West is seen as a mark of moral retardation."

I have a solution that is win-win for everyone, and I mean everyone.

We are told that the rich West should share with poor Third World. We are told that diversity is wonderful. We also know that some people are 'natural conservatives' and don't like Diversity.

Okay, here's a solution that is win-win for white libs, white cons, and third world.

All white libs move with all their wealth to third world.

That way, white libs will share their wealth with third world folks.

Also, white libs will enjoy instant diversity. They won't have to wait for their native lands to become white-minority. They can enjoy white-minority status immediately by moving to Third World. Wonderful!! That's what they say they want.

As for white cons remaining in the West, they get to enjoy homogeneity and harmony.

All sides win. Third World folks get to share in wealth brought by white libs. White libs get diversity, a lot of it. White cons get homogeneity.

What's not to like?

If white libs want Diversity, they should get it for themselves by moving to the Third World. They should not force it on white natural conservatives.

"Did anyone imagine that, 50 years after the civil rights laws, we would still be having long hot summers in Ferguson, Baltimore and Milwaukee?"

That is not a Diversity problem. That is a mono-black problem.

Libs use Diversity as buffer between themselves and blacks. Diversity works at least in cushioning whites from blacks.

I think maybe Merkel was enthused about Syrians because better to have Muslims and Arabs than black Africans.

"In 2013, the top 1 percent of Americans in income paid 38 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of income-earners, half the nation, paid only 3 percent of all income taxes."

But globalism made the top 1% grab just about everything. So, it's only right. I say tax the rich at 90%.

White libs move their wealth to the 3rd world?

You do know, of course, that the leftist (liberals) largely are the chattering class, right?

How many mechanical engineers or other STEM people (actual, producing, productive people, not the people with STEM degrees who work in marketing, HR or PR) are virtue-signaling leftists?

I suggest: DARN FEW.

The people who MAKE real stuff and DO real work know where prosperity comes from. They don’t generally feel obligated to give away what they produce to people who don’t or can’t produce it.

All this “bleeding heart” pathological altruism is far more likely to be found among those who think pushing paper in a bureaucracy is “work.”

"How many mechanical engineers or other STEM people (actual, producing, productive people, not the people with STEM degrees who work in marketing, HR or PR) are virtue-signaling leftists?
I suggest: DARN FEW."

Silicon Valley is filled with top engineers at every level.

90% of them buggers are Democrats.

Hollywood has lots of expert technical people in crew. Most are Democrats.

"All this “bleeding heart” pathological altruism is far more likely to be found among those who think pushing paper in a bureaucracy is “work.”"

In reality, what you described was the machinations of white Christian Europeans who sought to prosper individually and collectively, while civilizing the world in the process.

"Life will go on (for most), but the earthquakes that come from this inevitable collapse in wealth will shake cities to the ground in ashes and cast many of the mighty into oblivion."

You assume there are not contingency plans in place. By hook or by crook, the banksters and the government will not allow a financial armageddon to take place. "Corrections" are the flavor of the information age.

"And I’m of the view that Hollywood is run by a certain tribe, whose actions are either an amazing coincidence or a conspiracy to demoralize every Caucasian in Western Civ."

The Jews are not creating a world to destroy white Christians. Besides, Western Civilization is LONG gone. Most Americans refer to American society. I really don't understand your fetish with "western civilization".

I’m not sure I agree with the libs/(conservative) bit, but I share your opinion of disciplines that add little value to the human condition, let alone to future prospects. I suppose some satisfaction can be taken in looking at something built few in those those fields can hope to enjoy. Most of them leave no trace of earthly accomplishment.

Forty years ago mechanical engineers had the headache of dealing with subjective individual comfort standards achieved by inexact methods. Hopefully it’s better now. Structural engineers specializing in steel had it a little better (a more exact medium), but they also dealt with construction, which can easily subvert the best design if one isn’t frequently onsite.

I’ve always liked the admonition ‘be happy in your work.’ So many (especially those in fields that deal in intangibles) aren’t. That is their special punishment.

"All this “bleeding heart” pathological altruism...."
Sorry, what ?
What altruism, of any kind ?
I don't believe we should be altruistic to the third world, but a little justice might be nice. Why ? Let's forget justice because it's "right" (because no doubt that will be considered more bleeding heart pathological leftism). No let's have a bit of justice because it PROFITS EVERBODY.
So, what do I mean?
Let's stop supporting various third world tyrants who use their countries as personal bank accounts. Who see their people's as resources to be exploited by any home or western bastard after a quick buck (ie helps prevent social upheaval & regional instability)
Let's stop the IMF and their trailing miasma of "economic hit men" from destroying third world economies for the benefit of western banks etc.
Let's stop enabling right wing "regime change" : ie Brazil, Ukraine, Hondourus etc, etc, etc.
Let's stop bombing etc the crap out of third world countries (ie helps stop the CAUSES of that "diversity" everyone dislikes: poverty/war = global flows of people = lots of darkish persons in the US)
Let's do some trade deals that advantage all players.
And so on.
See nothing altruistic, let alone bleeding heart. In the long term, Justice is just good business.

How many mechanical engineers or other STEM people (actual, producing, productive people, not the people with STEM degrees who work in marketing, HR or PR) are virtue-signaling leftists? I suggest: DARN FEW. The people who MAKE real stuff and DO real work know where prosperity comes from. They don’t generally feel obligated to give away what they produce to people who don’t or can’t produce it.

Twenty years ago when I started as a software engineer, I would have agreed with you. Not so much anymore. Most millenials are SJW koolaid drinkers. Even some of the older engineers I know get their "news" from the Daily Show. I am one of a few at my workplace who openly supports Trump. I have to suppress talking politics at work, otherwise I quickly become enraged when talking to these cucked fools.

Look at the Brits. At one point, they were sore about losing Hong Kong back to the Chinese.
They were awful proud of what they'd done with HK while Mao drove China to the ground.
But in the end, as agreed in the contract, the Brits turned over rich HK to mainland China.
In a way, it was only right because HK is made up of Chinese.

That was then, this is now.
Today, the Brits do NOTHING even when they are losing London, their own capital, to the Third World and globalist financiers.

I mean losing a Chinese city to the Chinese was one thing.
But losing your own great city to the Third World horde and Globalist cabal?

This is the mental state of the white world. It's beyond talking logic and sense to it.

It’s beyond talking logic and sense to it.

Karma, payback, retaliation, vengeance — may not be logical but they are inevitable.

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." -- Churchill's remark after Chamberlain returned from signing the Munich Pact with Hitler

There is no way to avoid the financial catastrophe ahead of us, the money has been spent (or obligated) and the piper must be paid. We do have a choice of facing the difficulty honestly and preparing for the inevitable wars that will follow or continuing to pretend that the pain can be avoided and being unprepared when war comes upon us like a thief in the night.

The mass of humanity will always choose to avoid facing pain. This promises to be a very interesting century.

The mass of humanity behaves as a herd, and the herd following predictable cycles.

The only thing not (entirely) predictable was the height to which this unholy marriage of monetary-system madness and pathological optimism could be flogged.

Today we have a world addicted to:
1. Using debt to create the illusion of having wealth while consuming it, too.
2. Pulling future consumption into the present.
3. Ignoring the fact that future wealth production requires capital maintenance today.
4. Believing that a promise to be paid $10 in ten years is the same as having $10 today (in terms of purchasing power.)

Excess debt will be defaulted upon or its value will collapse as interest rates must eventually rise. The real issue is that so much of what we take for granted today rests on the perception of astronomical wealth sitting in that Ocean of IOU’s.

Inevitable defaults and rate increases will have the effect of evaporating vast quantities of the “wealth” now believed to exist in that Bond Ocean. Once the process finally begins, any attempts to re-fill the Ocean (with new credit/borrowing) will have the paradoxical effect of increasing the evaporation of wealth.

Either the brilliant minds working for the Fed know this (and are preparing their bomb shelters for when this Vast Game of Chicken ends) or they are so smart they’re utter morons.

Life will go on (for most), but the earthquakes that come from this inevitable collapse in wealth will shake cities to the ground in ashes and cast many of the mighty into oblivion.

Don't underestimate our passivity. Our moneyed elites are happy to take negative interest rates and watch wealth dissipate under mass immigration and dysgenic demographics. The last one standing will turn off the lights and go quietly into the night.

Yes, our poor and formerly-middle class tax consumers are going to vote to keep government support. because it’s the only option left after their livelihoods have been destroyed.

Good point, but like with the “the denouement of this will be hyperinflation” argument, I think what you expect for the future is already here in the present…and will eventually resolve in the opposite direction.

Short run: Plan A (things go on in the same pathological direction.)
Intermediate run: “They” try to tax their way out of the bottomless pit in which things are now.
Longer run: The wealth, when the Bond Ocean evaporates, was never actually there, so trying to “tax” it will be like scooping reality out of a dream.

By the time we’re done, much of what is available in today’s cornucopia will not be available at any price, and the rest will be available for pennies on the dollar, but very few people will even have the pennies to buy it.

That will be the financial low. The economic/social lows will depend on just how stupid the politicians of that time become.

You do know, of course, that the leftist (liberals) largely are the chattering class, right?

How many mechanical engineers or other STEM people (actual, producing, productive people, not the people with STEM degrees who work in marketing, HR or PR) are virtue-signaling leftists?

I suggest: DARN FEW.

The people who MAKE real stuff and DO real work know where prosperity comes from. They don't generally feel obligated to give away what they produce to people who don't or can't produce it.

All this "bleeding heart" pathological altruism is far more likely to be found among those who think pushing paper in a bureaucracy is "work."

“How many mechanical engineers or other STEM people (actual, producing, productive people, not the people with STEM degrees who work in marketing, HR or PR) are virtue-signaling leftists?
I suggest: DARN FEW.”

Silicon Valley is filled with top engineers at every level.

90% of them buggers are Democrats.

Hollywood has lots of expert technical people in crew. Most are Democrats.

Or perhaps Silicon Valley and Hollywood are examples of sample bias. Disney, for sure, attracts a certain--kind-- of people, I suspect. And Silicon Valley is (I hear) wall-to-wall with H1-B foreigners.

This is not to mention that if Hollywood and SV were incinerated in unfortunate asteroid strikes, no one in America would miss a meal or suffer the shortage of any necessity. OTOH, if most of the major oil refineries, CAT & John Deere plants or electric generating plants were obliterated, famine and deprivation would soon cover North America. I'd rather examine the politics of the people who run the latter. They might have a better grasp of what makes the world turn than do people largely working in entertainment, even their techies.

PS: Didn't Disney just infamously fire their American IT people in favor of H1-B foreigner contract workers? I'm guessing that the unemployed IT people will lose a lot of their warm-and-fuzzies for Disney's Leftist-lunacy. And I'm of the view that Hollywood is run by a certain tribe, whose actions are either an amazing coincidence or a conspiracy to demoralize every Caucasian in Western Civ. How else does one explain the ubiquity of hard-left social propaganda (LGBT XYZ misandrist idiocy all?)

That's why I call myself a recovering ex-geek. Grumpy old man "back in my day" type now I guess.

The geekverse was vaguely libertarian. We didn't really give a damn, to be honest. Politics kept the social types busy and out of our way. We were betas or sigmas and generally happy to keep to our own interests.

Silicon Valley is what happens when billions of VC dollars come along and weaponize the sea geek personality disorders, and mix in Hollywood fetishization of geek culture. Gammas. Gammas everywhere. I sometimes think social media came about just so they could all virtue signal as much as possible.

I love meeting them, though. They look down on me for not being in the holy Valley and ask what I do. The look in their eyes is delicious as I describe my work on spacecraft communication systems intended for operation in deep space. Hardware I helped design is orbiting Saturn. I'm living the geek dream.

I ask what they do and I get some vague muttering about what sounds like yet another chat or photo sharing app. Hey, good for you, buddy. Try and keep the data mining for your corporate masters to a minimum if you can, mmmkay?

"How many mechanical engineers or other STEM people (actual, producing, productive people, not the people with STEM degrees who work in marketing, HR or PR) are virtue-signaling leftists?
I suggest: DARN FEW."

Silicon Valley is filled with top engineers at every level.

90% of them buggers are Democrats.

Hollywood has lots of expert technical people in crew. Most are Democrats.

Most geeks and nerds in science and technology are Democrats.

They are globerals and smugots.

Perhaps you’ve got me there. Small world and all that.

Or perhaps Silicon Valley and Hollywood are examples of sample bias. Disney, for sure, attracts a certain–kind– of people, I suspect. And Silicon Valley is (I hear) wall-to-wall with H1-B foreigners.

This is not to mention that if Hollywood and SV were incinerated in unfortunate asteroid strikes, no one in America would miss a meal or suffer the shortage of any necessity. OTOH, if most of the major oil refineries, CAT & John Deere plants or electric generating plants were obliterated, famine and deprivation would soon cover North America. I’d rather examine the politics of the people who run the latter. They might have a better grasp of what makes the world turn than do people largely working in entertainment, even their techies.

PS: Didn’t Disney just infamously fire their American IT people in favor of H1-B foreigner contract workers? I’m guessing that the unemployed IT people will lose a lot of their warm-and-fuzzies for Disney’s Leftist-lunacy. And I’m of the view that Hollywood is run by a certain tribe, whose actions are either an amazing coincidence or a conspiracy to demoralize every Caucasian in Western Civ. How else does one explain the ubiquity of hard-left social propaganda (LGBT XYZ misandrist idiocy all?)

"I’m guessing that the unemployed IT people will lose a lot of their warm-and-fuzzies for Disney’s Leftist-lunacy."
You really believe that corporations care about political affiliation? When Ronald Reagan gave a blanket amnesty to the hordes of illegal migrants, was he really a hard-left socialist or was he a servant to the US corporations (and more) and their desires of cheap labor? What kind of patriotism the exceptional 1-percenters have been showing by demolishing the US industries and hiring instead the cheap labor abroad (and not being punished for this at all?) Perhaps if this country were more democratic, it would stop waging the idiotic wars of aggression for the benefits of major warmongers and instead invest in great projects at home - these projects would re-channel the trillions of dollars to creating a massive amount of jobs for the US citizenry. Instead we have 1%.
The Pentagon can't account for $6.5 trillion - and this is just for the last 10 years. And yet they are not able to protect the US borders (to do their job). Funny. Have they really tried? After 9/11 we had 7 years of GOP administration (remember Cheney and Rove - do they look like Libs?) and almost 8 years of DEMs administration (do extrajudicial renditions and persecution of whistleblowers look peachy-liberal for you?) Should not we honestly admit that the US government is a government of corporations and for corporations?
The popular reaction in Europe towards violation of EU borders by refugees and migrants is negative, meaning that the democratic intuition of Europeans is against the US plans to dump the consequences of the US idiotic policies in the Middle East on Europeans. Were these idiotic policies conceived by the US citizenry at large? - No. What about the US citizenry desire to have universal health care by paying taxes directly to a Government of the People instead of the blood0sucking insurance companies? What about Monsanto making its rules in Congress ... or Oilmen making their rules for fracking? That Mrs. Clinton calls herself a democrat only shows the sorry state of democracy in the US. This is the problem.

That should net our Treasury at least a cool two to three trillion, and put our ship of state back on course.

Not to defend the wars, but "two to three trillion" is chump change compared to the 200 trillion plus of unfunded liabilities and 64 trillion of total credit in the system.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TCMDO

The fools have promised that we can "grow" our way out of the trouble. Add GDP to the graph in the above link and if you have any reasonable level of mathematical ability you will see that that is a lie.

We had a "blue ribbon" panel of economists a few years ago examine the books and they said we needed some combination of a 58% cut in spending or a 38% tax increase to begin digging out of the hole. That paper went down the "memory hole".

Pointing and screeching at your designated bad guys just shows you do not understand the problem.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

“Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one.”

That's true of a nation like Great Britain.

There were three kinds of great powers in the 20th century.

The great land powers. US, China, Russia. Brazil and Argentina have the potential of becoming great land powers. India too. But too many low IQ people and/or a culture of mess.
The great land powers can suffer setbacks and come back. They still got the people and land even when they lose. Look how China went through hell in 20th century but still came back.

Then, there were mid-sized near-great or great powers like Germany and Japan. They had sizable people but their land was limited. Both tried to expand by taking over already populated lands, Russia and China. It proved to be their downfall. When these nations fight wars and suffer huge setback, they are finished. Japan and Germany are finished as great powers. They are just economic engines.

And then, you got the great powers via overseas empires. Brits, French, and Spanish. But such are vulnerable. For one thing, the natives might one day rise up, which is what happened. Also, even the colonies of imperialists may seek independence, like all the Anglo and Hispanic imperial nations eventually did. Such empires are vulnerable to war and defeat.

It also depends on a range of circumstances that amount to whether one is on the rise or decline [these terms are meant only as catch-alls] and whether one uses all the tools of power well.

France intervened in the 30 years war in a timely way and for secular reasons, on the protestant side, to keep the war going and undermine its Habsburg Spanish and Austrian enemies. France was already a great power. by using the opportunity the German war presented, France undermined its enemies and enhanced its own power greatly.

France frittered away a good deal of that in Louis XIV’s endless series of wars. On the other hand, it was still the dominant military, economic and demographic power of Europe in 1715, had actually achieved the goal of his last war [put his grandson on the Spanish throne while keeping most of the Spanish empire intact] and make Spain at minimum an ally and often a puppet. Although he had to make concessions to Austria, and did not break Austria, he had removed the Habsburg axis encircling France and moved France to a position of power-parity with Austria in the German world. France didn’t really get its ass handed to it strategically or start to exceed its resources until the 7 years war. That’s nearly a century of great power war before France started its downward slide.

Britain could be said to be one of the great powers by the time of the 1707 Union, and was already fighting the French at sea on equal terms and on land with success as the equal partner to the Austrians [fewer ground troops, but monetary subsidy]. Britain continued managing the next century of great power war not only able to do so within its resources, but enhancing its power. Even the loss of America did not provide a strategic disadvantage until a century afterward. Certainly it did not impede Britain’s capacity to engage in and subsidize half of Europe in 20 years of war against France 1793-1815 [these being the wars that finally broke France's capacity to stay on top, but enhanced Britain's.]

France was broken when its archaic financial system proved unequal to its victory in the American war, but the revolution and serious administrative reform in short order produced a France briefly able to wildly exceed Louis XIV’s dreams, taking on all of Europe by land and, briefly, by sea, and within a hair’s breadth of finding some diplomatic and ideological suite that could cement it on top of European civilization. Failing that, sure, it had exceeded its carrying capacity by the end and never quite recovered. It did stay in the ranks of great powers for over a century more, though, if it isn’t still.

Britain failed when its hitherto far superior financial system operating in a more mature world economy proved unequal to a more costly kind of war than ever before faced, at the same time as it had for the first time to put a continental-scale army in the field for the duration and take [along with the others] unprecedented losses. Even then Britain’s fall wasn’t guaranteed to take it out of the first rank [it was already behind the US at the top by 1914] if there hadn’t been another even bigger and more costly war so soon.

Even poor Spain, a country so poor that it should never have been a great power at all, and whose almost magic possession of an empire was its ultimate undoing, nevertheless capitalized on that empire’s wealth long enough to be the leading power for a century, and it still was so well into the 30 years war after having fought, with indifferent success, many previous major wars. And even its decline took it over a century to fall out of the ranks of great powers.

Those are all pretty good runs by any standards, certainly compared to the US to date.

And even looking at the US, it has fought at least 1.3 ‘great wars’ successfully and decisively [that's citing its participation in the world wars] and ended up with its power enhanced after both, the latter decisively so. It hasn’t fought such a war since. If it is laid low by its failure in recent expeditionary wars, that would be the equivalent of Britain being knocked off its perch by Crimea, South Africa, the Indian Mutiny, or indeed the endless wars of the Indian frontier.

“reform in short order produced a France briefly able to wildly exceed Louis XIV’s dreams, taking on all of Europe by land and, briefly, by sea, and within a hair’s breadth of finding some diplomatic and ideological suite that could cement it on top of European civilization.”

Napoléon’s glory came at the cost of ±1,700,000 men (more than those lost in WW1). France’s population never recovered. Was it worth it?

The fools have promised that we can “grow” our way out of the trouble. Add GDP to the graph in the above link and if you have any reasonable level of mathematical ability you will see that that is a lie.

We had a “blue ribbon” panel of economists a few years ago examine the books and they said we needed some combination of a 58% cut in spending or a 38% tax increase to begin digging out of the hole. That paper went down the “memory hole”.

Pointing and screeching at your designated bad guys just shows you do not understand the problem.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

Taking back 3 trillion and arresting the neocon war fraud profiteers is the smartest option available to our country .

It may be our only viable option, for several reasons:

First , the infusion of liquidity restores some semblance of sobriety to our runaway balance sheet.

Second ,removal of all the leading criminal protagonists in DC, who created this obscene perpetual war debt catastrophe, from any (and all)places of power will act as a much needed tonic for our ENTIRE state apparatus.

Third, it would serve as a mandatory corrective to our governments pernicious addiction to war fraud ,terror fraud , corruption, and obscene overspending.

Fourth, it will reduce our GDP to DEBT ratio just enough to get us back on the winning side.
which in turn would underwrite the good faith and credit worthiness of our dollar and our treasury bonds.

Fifth, it will send a message to the entire world, we saw the problem and cleaned house.

BUT...if you are asking if it will it eliminate the debt ? Hell no .....

but it would take a nice bite out of it.......and when the next budget comes around, removing the leading causes of our insane overspending should show itself on the ledger.

If you recall, it was only sixteen years ago that our debt (5.6 T) to GDP (9.5 T ) ratio was quite good....and we were running close to a 200 Billion surplus on our yearly cash flow.

This was just before the Neocon" coup" and its heinous runaway war spending began.

We can get back that ratio without raising taxes too....

If we were smart, as a nation, and were able to conceptualize the future in a different way than our current Neocon "stewards" are directing us, by 2020 we could have an annualized GDP of 21 trillion and a national debt reduced back down to 14 trillion.

Its not all the way there, ......but its a start.

Enough to shore up the dollar and above all else, restore our country's good name and reputation from the mendacious Neocons who stole it (from us) for their own agenda.

Yes, our poor and formerly-middle class tax consumers are going to vote to keep government support. because it’s the only option left after their livelihoods have been destroyed.

Good point, but like with the "the denouement of this will be hyperinflation" argument, I think what you expect for the future is already here in the present...and will eventually resolve in the opposite direction.

Short run: Plan A (things go on in the same pathological direction.)
Intermediate run: "They" try to tax their way out of the bottomless pit in which things are now.
Longer run: The wealth, when the Bond Ocean evaporates, was never actually there, so trying to "tax" it will be like scooping reality out of a dream.

By the time we're done, much of what is available in today's cornucopia will not be available at any price, and the rest will be available for pennies on the dollar, but very few people will even have the pennies to buy it.

That will be the financial low. The economic/social lows will depend on just how stupid the politicians of that time become.

That will be the financial low. The economic/social lows will depend on just how stupid the politicians of that time become.

I really think that things have gone so far that there is little the politicians can do to alter the course beyond trying to avoid an all-out nuclear exchange (not a small thing).

War is coming and it will be a doozy. I believe the probability of biological weapons of mass destruction being used is a near certainty as is a nuclear exchange between some of the smaller players.

I don't know if it'll be intranational from financial collapse or breakdown of civil society or international nuclear annihilation due to neocon Russophobic missteps. Right now, with huge debt and wild-ass spending, along with a tenuous financial system and fiat currency, I'm betting on the former. The vast majority of Americans are fully reliant on the 18 wheelers you see all-day long on the interstates. Imagine how quickly social breakdown will occur when they stop.
And the federal government can't force these industries to keep going, and the paper-pushing bureaucrats at the totally worthless FEMA can only hold meeting and make suggestions.

Look at the Brits. At one point, they were sore about losing Hong Kong back to the Chinese.
They were awful proud of what they'd done with HK while Mao drove China to the ground.
But in the end, as agreed in the contract, the Brits turned over rich HK to mainland China.
In a way, it was only right because HK is made up of Chinese.

That was then, this is now.
Today, the Brits do NOTHING even when they are losing London, their own capital, to the Third World and globalist financiers.

I mean losing a Chinese city to the Chinese was one thing.
But losing your own great city to the Third World horde and Globalist cabal?

This is the mental state of the white world. It's beyond talking logic and sense to it.

“But in the end, as agreed in the contract, the Brits turned over rich HK to mainland China. In a way, it was only right because HK is made up of Chinese.”

Except Hong Kong should never have been under British control in the first place. Thanks, invade the world/invite the world.

I've long been under the impression that the Japanese imperialist crowd were mostly interested in attempting to secure themselves against relentless Western imperial encroachment by forming the Co-Prosperity Sphere, including the coastal areas of China, as a sort of mirror to the Monroe Doctrine, and getting resources wherever they could.

I don't believe that destroying China outright was either their intent or within their capability. How would they have benefited from destroying it?

Anyway, I am always open to learn something new and to have my errors corrected, so kindly indulge me here.

That should net our Treasury at least a cool two to three trillion, and put our ship of state back on course.

Not to defend the wars, but "two to three trillion" is chump change compared to the 200 trillion plus of unfunded liabilities and 64 trillion of total credit in the system.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TCMDO

The fools have promised that we can "grow" our way out of the trouble. Add GDP to the graph in the above link and if you have any reasonable level of mathematical ability you will see that that is a lie.

We had a "blue ribbon" panel of economists a few years ago examine the books and they said we needed some combination of a 58% cut in spending or a 38% tax increase to begin digging out of the hole. That paper went down the "memory hole".

Pointing and screeching at your designated bad guys just shows you do not understand the problem.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

Sorry Fred,

but you are wrong by a COUNTRY MILE.

Taking back 3 trillion and arresting the neocon war fraud profiteers is the smartest option available to our country .

It may be our only viable option, for several reasons:

First , the infusion of liquidity restores some semblance of sobriety to our runaway balance sheet.

Second ,removal of all the leading criminal protagonists in DC, who created this obscene perpetual war debt catastrophe, from any (and all)places of power will act as a much needed tonic for our ENTIRE state apparatus.

Third, it would serve as a mandatory corrective to our governments pernicious addiction to war fraud ,terror fraud , corruption, and obscene overspending.

Fourth, it will reduce our GDP to DEBT ratio just enough to get us back on the winning side.
which in turn would underwrite the good faith and credit worthiness of our dollar and our treasury bonds.

Fifth, it will send a message to the entire world, we saw the problem and cleaned house.

BUT…if you are asking if it will it eliminate the debt ? Hell no …..

but it would take a nice bite out of it…….and when the next budget comes around, removing the leading causes of our insane overspending should show itself on the ledger.

If you recall, it was only sixteen years ago that our debt (5.6 T) to GDP (9.5 T ) ratio was quite good….and we were running close to a 200 Billion surplus on our yearly cash flow.

This was just before the Neocon” coup” and its heinous runaway war spending began.

We can get back that ratio without raising taxes too….

If we were smart, as a nation, and were able to conceptualize the future in a different way than our current Neocon “stewards” are directing us, by 2020 we could have an annualized GDP of 21 trillion and a national debt reduced back down to 14 trillion.

Its not all the way there, ……but its a start.

Enough to shore up the dollar and above all else, restore our country’s good name and reputation from the mendacious Neocons who stole it (from us) for their own agenda.

You do know, of course, that the leftist (liberals) largely are the chattering class, right?

How many mechanical engineers or other STEM people (actual, producing, productive people, not the people with STEM degrees who work in marketing, HR or PR) are virtue-signaling leftists?

I suggest: DARN FEW.

The people who MAKE real stuff and DO real work know where prosperity comes from. They don't generally feel obligated to give away what they produce to people who don't or can't produce it.

All this "bleeding heart" pathological altruism is far more likely to be found among those who think pushing paper in a bureaucracy is "work."

“All this “bleeding heart” pathological altruism is far more likely to be found among those who think pushing paper in a bureaucracy is “work.””

In reality, what you described was the machinations of white Christian Europeans who sought to prosper individually and collectively, while civilizing the world in the process.

“Life will go on (for most), but the earthquakes that come from this inevitable collapse in wealth will shake cities to the ground in ashes and cast many of the mighty into oblivion.”

You assume there are not contingency plans in place. By hook or by crook, the banksters and the government will not allow a financial armageddon to take place. “Corrections” are the flavor of the information age.

“And I’m of the view that Hollywood is run by a certain tribe, whose actions are either an amazing coincidence or a conspiracy to demoralize every Caucasian in Western Civ.”

The Jews are not creating a world to destroy white Christians. Besides, Western Civilization is LONG gone. Most Americans refer to American society. I really don’t understand your fetish with “western civilization”.

You're right, "western civilisation" isn't what's at stake, it's just a geographic designation. But Europeans, and their many diverse, yet interconnected and intercomprehensible, societies are. For some obscure reason, Europeans prefer their own rules for society, to what's on offer from other ethnic groups.

Without interference by the British, who granted the colony governor exclusive authority without any input from Hong Kong citizens.

"In the end, the Brits were not the worst influence on China."

Not exactly. The revenue from the opium trade was a key source of filling the coffers of the British treasury. Ingenious extraction of funds or outright thievery?

"It was Japan that sought to destroy all of China outright."

Certainly Great Britain built up Hong Kong, for itself, but in the process destroyed the opportunity for the Hong Kong people to decide for themselves what political, economic, and social direction to take.

“For, as John Adams reminded us, “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.””

As I have written here many times democracy does not work, Our country started out as a crude form of meritocracy and it worked for awhile, but laws were changed to allow more and more people to vote. When idiots are allowed to vote bad things happen.

In other words, democracy works best in a society that educates all members in the meaning and relevance of democracy. England is undergoing some interesting introspection about what democracy is, and how the structures of institutions do or do not operate democratically, at the moment. Social media has created a generation that wants to press 'like/dislike', instantly, on everything. But the biggest challenge is the schism that has surfaced between citizens who take advice from 'experts' in public life vs. 'experts' on the internet.

“It was Japan that sought to destroy all of China outright.”? Not when you consider China’s bloody history of self-destructive democide. The total for the communist regime, before and after Mao commanded the mainland has been rounded off to 77,000,000 murdered–by the Chinese–not the Japanese.

"All this “bleeding heart” pathological altruism is far more likely to be found among those who think pushing paper in a bureaucracy is “work.”"

In reality, what you described was the machinations of white Christian Europeans who sought to prosper individually and collectively, while civilizing the world in the process.

"Life will go on (for most), but the earthquakes that come from this inevitable collapse in wealth will shake cities to the ground in ashes and cast many of the mighty into oblivion."

You assume there are not contingency plans in place. By hook or by crook, the banksters and the government will not allow a financial armageddon to take place. "Corrections" are the flavor of the information age.

"And I’m of the view that Hollywood is run by a certain tribe, whose actions are either an amazing coincidence or a conspiracy to demoralize every Caucasian in Western Civ."

The Jews are not creating a world to destroy white Christians. Besides, Western Civilization is LONG gone. Most Americans refer to American society. I really don't understand your fetish with "western civilization".

“I really don’t understand your fetish with “western civilization”.”

You’re right, “western civilisation” isn’t what’s at stake, it’s just a geographic designation. But Europeans, and their many diverse, yet interconnected and intercomprehensible, societies are. For some obscure reason, Europeans prefer their own rules for society, to what’s on offer from other ethnic groups.

For some obscure reason, Europeans prefer their own rules for society, to what’s on offer from other ethnic groups.

Given the tsunami of people streaming from cesspools toward Western Europe, the UK, the USA, Canada and other places where Western Civ peoples produce the golden eggs, everyone prefers those rules...until the "others" achieve enough of a percentage of the populace that they begin to reproduce the cesspool conditions of their homelands in their new digs.

If those streaming into the West were capable of producing at home the conditions that they seek in the West, why haven't they done so in the centuries leading up to now?

"For, as John Adams reminded us, “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”"

As I have written here many times democracy does not work, Our country started out as a crude form of meritocracy and it worked for awhile, but laws were changed to allow more and more people to vote. When idiots are allowed to vote bad things happen.

In other words, democracy works best in a society that educates all members in the meaning and relevance of democracy. England is undergoing some interesting introspection about what democracy is, and how the structures of institutions do or do not operate democratically, at the moment. Social media has created a generation that wants to press ‘like/dislike’, instantly, on everything. But the biggest challenge is the schism that has surfaced between citizens who take advice from ‘experts’ in public life vs. ‘experts’ on the internet.

I would say the biggest threat to this country is one in which Mr Buchanan is part of and works for, the Roman Catholic Church. You have our government chocked full of papists who owe their allegiance to no one but their “vicar of Christ”, who is a king of his own country, and has his own set of “laws” that all “Catholics” hold in higher regard than the laws of this country. Kick all who owe allegiance to foreign powers out of our government, and then, and only then will America become recognizable.

Randle, what about the Jews who owe allegiance to Israel and approximately one million dual Israeli/ American citizens resident in this country? I've never heard of dual Vatican/American citizens. Then there are at least one hundred million Chinese, Mexican, African, Indian and citizens of every country in the world residing in America.

Are you a confederate revanchists still muttering that the south will rise again? Are you one of the confederate revanchists that claim that the only reason the slave holders lost the civil war is because the Pope send ships full of Irish catholic mercenaries to America because the Pope wanted to destroy the confederacy?

Or are you one of those southern Evangelical Protestants who claims there is a conference room in the Vatican cellar where the Pope and the devil meet regularly to plot the destruction of
Protestants?

I was scarcely aware of the Catholic Church until I started reading pro White conservative websites on the Internet
Then I found all sorts of nonsense posted by southern Protestants who still think you lost the civil war because of Irish and German Catholic draftees in the Union army

Randle, I was born and raised Catholic and have friends and acquaintances who are Catholic diehards, including a nun and a deacon -- honest, kind, upstanding people who deeply love the real traditional America, individual freedom, and individual responsibility. None of them is ashamed of being a white European person, and only one of the many people I have in mind is even timid in that respect.

Yet I've gradually become disgusted by -- not merely disillusioned with -- the church hierarchy, both the ones in the past and certainly the one in power right now. My wife and I have started to try out a Lutheran church, so thorough is our dissatisfaction and disdain for the RC Church we used to love.

A major reason for our move away from the RC church is its increasing advocacy of the displacement and eventual extermination of white people from all their lands and positions. No need to mince words there.

(I also always disagreed with their prohibition on priests marrying and raising children and, well, being normal well-round adult men, as well as the foolish notion that the pope (or "the bishops acting collectively") could be infallible. But those pale in comparison to the church dedicating itself to the massive importation of people from incompatible cultures who hate and resent us and will harm our children, take their property, and animalize their culture and their streets. Yes, especially Muslims and Africans.

I have to correct you, though, on the absurd notion that most Catholics ever had greater loyalty to the pope, or the vatican's laws or canonical law, than to our country, the USA, and to our nation, the overwhelmingly white-European peoples who founded, sustained, and developed that country. My father, in fact, a devout Catholic, always told me that we are Americans first and that nobody, not even "The Church", could ever be trusted if they urged harm to our nation.

You should be pleased and relieved to know that many, many cradle Catholics have viewpoints, values, and goals just like yours. Don't insult and alienate them with generalizations that were never widely true and are even less so now.

"All this “bleeding heart” pathological altruism is far more likely to be found among those who think pushing paper in a bureaucracy is “work.”"

In reality, what you described was the machinations of white Christian Europeans who sought to prosper individually and collectively, while civilizing the world in the process.

"Life will go on (for most), but the earthquakes that come from this inevitable collapse in wealth will shake cities to the ground in ashes and cast many of the mighty into oblivion."

You assume there are not contingency plans in place. By hook or by crook, the banksters and the government will not allow a financial armageddon to take place. "Corrections" are the flavor of the information age.

"And I’m of the view that Hollywood is run by a certain tribe, whose actions are either an amazing coincidence or a conspiracy to demoralize every Caucasian in Western Civ."

The Jews are not creating a world to destroy white Christians. Besides, Western Civilization is LONG gone. Most Americans refer to American society. I really don't understand your fetish with "western civilization".

Most Americans refer to American society. I really don’t understand your fetish with “western civilization”.

Then, as I always suspected, you have no idea from where the trappings of prosperity you take for granted arise.

Enjoy the decline. With luck, you and yours won’t have a way to hitch your useless carcasses to the engine my kids are running. People like those in my family always do well. Parasites, not so much.

Head back to a pre-Western Civ kind of place. With luck, yours will be a fast trip.

"Then, as I always suspected, you have no idea from where the trappings of prosperity you take for granted arise."

American prosperity arose from a work ethic, connections, and a little bit of luck, compliments of the innovations brought forth by immigrants from Europe, with the skids greased in part by the backs of slaves from Africa and natives from the Americas. Indeed, the backbone came from Judeo-Christian teachings, from the dogged contributions of Aristotle and Plato and Cicero, and the legacies of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. From these old traditions arose a new civilization, the American way of life, withliberty of the individual citizen. It is celebrated today by the people who reside in this great country.

"With luck, you and yours won’t have a way to hitch your useless carcasses to the engine my kids are running. People like those in my family always do well. Parasites, not so much."

Chances are your kids and grandkids aren't as high IQ and high time preference as you loudly tout. Moreover, I provide for my family quite well, and have the will, moxie, and connections come "armageddon" to survive and thrive.

"Head back to a pre-Western Civ kind of place. With luck, yours will be a fast trip."

Non-whites were completely content living their lives without the "benefits" and "advantages" of Western Civilization.

You're right, "western civilisation" isn't what's at stake, it's just a geographic designation. But Europeans, and their many diverse, yet interconnected and intercomprehensible, societies are. For some obscure reason, Europeans prefer their own rules for society, to what's on offer from other ethnic groups.

For some obscure reason, Europeans prefer their own rules for society, to what’s on offer from other ethnic groups.

Given the tsunami of people streaming from cesspools toward Western Europe, the UK, the USA, Canada and other places where Western Civ peoples produce the golden eggs, everyone prefers those rules…until the “others” achieve enough of a percentage of the populace that they begin to reproduce the cesspool conditions of their homelands in their new digs.

If those streaming into the West were capable of producing at home the conditions that they seek in the West, why haven’t they done so in the centuries leading up to now?

"Democracy works when:
1. the people involved all largely agree on the basic rules anyway, and
2. the people involved agree to leave much of life outside of the purview of the political.

Neither of these conditions pertain now."

Democracy has always been messy, with people questioning those basic rules, and disagreeing over whether or not to leave life outside the political realm. You make it seem that at some point in time democracy was humming along. Your two premises lack historical reality.

"If those streaming into the West were capable of producing at home the conditions that they seek in the West, why haven’t they done so in the centuries leading up to now?"

Ask that of your ancestors why they came to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. Ask how and why "nativists" worked feverishly to state that the newcomers were other than being capable of forging a life for themselves and their families.

In other words, democracy works best in a society that educates all members in the meaning and relevance of democracy. England is undergoing some interesting introspection about what democracy is, and how the structures of institutions do or do not operate democratically, at the moment. Social media has created a generation that wants to press 'like/dislike', instantly, on everything. But the biggest challenge is the schism that has surfaced between citizens who take advice from 'experts' in public life vs. 'experts' on the internet.

Democracy works when:
1. the people involved all largely agree on the basic rules anyway, and
2. the people involved agree to leave much of life outside of the purview of the political.

Perfectly said. Almost all of life should not be subject to majority vote, or any kind of vote. Once fundamental rights are subject to the whim and prejudices of others, the battle is already mostly lost. But try we must.

I would say the biggest threat to this country is one in which Mr Buchanan is part of and works for, the Roman Catholic Church. You have our government chocked full of papists who owe their allegiance to no one but their "vicar of Christ", who is a king of his own country, and has his own set of "laws" that all "Catholics" hold in higher regard than the laws of this country. Kick all who owe allegiance to foreign powers out of our government, and then, and only then will America become recognizable.

I wondered how long it would take for an anti-Catholic bigot to spew out his two cents worth of vitriol because Buchanan is a Roman Catholic.

I'm embarrassed by the Catholic zealots who post on Unz and similar sites, but I also think Randle has a highly inaccurate view of most white Catholics and is needlessly insulting to Catholics who are on the same side in our joint struggle for physical and cultural survival.

The Catholic Church is a sickening institution dedicated, for whatever reason, to the death of my people and our countries. That's the main reason our family left the church -- my elderly parents, my wife and I, and others. We were not happy to do it. But it had to be done and was long overdue.

The current pope especially makes no secret of his obsession with displacing white people and subjecting hem to constant harassment, intimidation, rape, and other violence by hordes of hostile or backwards third world peoples. Jorge bergoglio is an evil man.

Most Americans refer to American society. I really don’t understand your fetish with “western civilization”.

Then, as I always suspected, you have no idea from where the trappings of prosperity you take for granted arise.

Enjoy the decline. With luck, you and yours won't have a way to hitch your useless carcasses to the engine my kids are running. People like those in my family always do well. Parasites, not so much.

Head back to a pre-Western Civ kind of place. With luck, yours will be a fast trip.

“Then, as I always suspected, you have no idea from where the trappings of prosperity you take for granted arise.”

American prosperity arose from a work ethic, connections, and a little bit of luck, compliments of the innovations brought forth by immigrants from Europe, with the skids greased in part by the backs of slaves from Africa and natives from the Americas. Indeed, the backbone came from Judeo-Christian teachings, from the dogged contributions of Aristotle and Plato and Cicero, and the legacies of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. From these old traditions arose a new civilization, the American way of life, with
liberty of the individual citizen. It is celebrated today by the people who reside in this great country.

“With luck, you and yours won’t have a way to hitch your useless carcasses to the engine my kids are running. People like those in my family always do well. Parasites, not so much.”

Chances are your kids and grandkids aren’t as high IQ and high time preference as you loudly tout. Moreover, I provide for my family quite well, and have the will, moxie, and connections come “armageddon” to survive and thrive.

“Head back to a pre-Western Civ kind of place. With luck, yours will be a fast trip.”

Non-whites were completely content living their lives without the “benefits” and “advantages” of Western Civilization.

For some obscure reason, Europeans prefer their own rules for society, to what’s on offer from other ethnic groups.

Given the tsunami of people streaming from cesspools toward Western Europe, the UK, the USA, Canada and other places where Western Civ peoples produce the golden eggs, everyone prefers those rules...until the "others" achieve enough of a percentage of the populace that they begin to reproduce the cesspool conditions of their homelands in their new digs.

If those streaming into the West were capable of producing at home the conditions that they seek in the West, why haven't they done so in the centuries leading up to now?

Could it possibly have something to do with capability?

“Democracy works when:
1. the people involved all largely agree on the basic rules anyway, and
2. the people involved agree to leave much of life outside of the purview of the political.

Neither of these conditions pertain now.”

Democracy has always been messy, with people questioning those basic rules, and disagreeing over whether or not to leave life outside the political realm. You make it seem that at some point in time democracy was humming along. Your two premises lack historical reality.

“If those streaming into the West were capable of producing at home the conditions that they seek in the West, why haven’t they done so in the centuries leading up to now?”

Ask that of your ancestors why they came to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. Ask how and why “nativists” worked feverishly to state that the newcomers were other than being capable of forging a life for themselves and their families.

Ask that of your ancestors why they came to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. Ask how and why “nativists” worked feverishly to state that the newcomers were other than being capable of forging a life for themselves and their families.

Many peoples' ancestors did not come to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. They came to essentially a a wilderness and had to hack out their own farms, towns and cities. Those colonists, settlers and pioneers are very different from immigrants who arrive into a ready-built civilization and partake freely from the social safety net.

Without interference by the British, who granted the colony governor exclusive authority without any input from Hong Kong citizens.

“In the end, the Brits were not the worst influence on China.”

Not exactly. The revenue from the opium trade was a key source of filling the coffers of the British treasury. Ingenious extraction of funds or outright thievery?

“It was Japan that sought to destroy all of China outright.”

Certainly Great Britain built up Hong Kong, for itself, but in the process destroyed the opportunity for the Hong Kong people to decide for themselves what political, economic, and social direction to take.

That silly old man would have been a far fairer, more rational, more parsimonious, more peaceful president than any we have had in my lifetime, perhaps any we have had in longer than that.

Do you disagree?

Which president or even major presidential candidate was better and why? (I'll grant you Ron Paul, maybe, if he would fully grow up and wake up on the lethal threat posed by continuing third world immigration.)

"Brits could hardly digest India yet it was going to swallow China whole?"

Not swallow China in one fell swoop of course, but at least a big chunk of it as a start. By the beginning of the last century the sub continent of South Asia has basically been digested by the Brits and the only way to continue expand is to expand northward. That means China. By the mid thirties the Brits has diluted China's control of Tibet to a point that the Brits already started referring to Tibet as British Tibet.

Re:foot binding It was the nationalist government of Chang Kai shek that eradicated foot binding by strict enforcement of the law plus an excellent propaganda campaign

The Manchus who ruled China from 16 something to 1910? Didn't practice foot binding at all.

The last empress has a bad reputation. SOP is to select a person as the enemy. For instanceAmerican communists and lefties demonized Chang Kai shek So the British and Sun Yat Sen demonized the Lady Empress.
She and her co empress had to deal with the Tai Ping rebellion a monster civil war that killed at least ten million and ravaged south China Officially it went on for about 20 years, actually it went in fron about 1830 to 1870.
Southern Chinese were as culpable in the opium war as the British. The British brought the opium to waters near the rivers, Chinese smugglers picked up and distributed it

But the worst thing is that China had 2 severely retarded emperors in a row, first her husband and then her son.

She did the best she could with what she had. Her mistakes were:
1 instigating the boxer rebellion which gave the British French etc the excuse to grab more power.
2 Selecting as successor a 2 year old instead of numerous middle aged and young adult princes

If you read only one side you are not a historian. If you had read the history of China you would know that China has gone from warlord anarchy and national government dictatorship for 4,000 years

The British Americans and Europeans caught China after 80 years of civil war retarded emperors, and the standard problems China had had for 4,000 years.

As for Hong Kong, it was leased not to the British government but to a non government British trading company by the legitimate Chinese government.

Panama has leased the Panama Canal to the Chinese government. China, not Panama now owns the canal until the lease runs out
What's the difference between Hong Kong and the canal? Nothing

Hong Kong has only a few springs and almost no water supply. Only about 1,500 people actually lived on Hong Kong island.
Kowloon on the mainland is where British Hong King obtained its water until deep drilling and irrigation systems were set up.

The legitimate Chinese government of the 1500s leased Macao Penninsula to the Portuguese. It worked out well for both as did Hong Kong.

*jung understands Brits did bad imperialist things but also admits how the West forced changes upon
China that were necessary.

If Brits had never come to China, China would still be a land of women with bound feet.*

the eradiction of bound feet has nothing to do with brits.

but chinese definitely had the brits to thank for being called the 'sick men of east asia' [opium ],
the burning of yuan ming yuen, etc.
that was the wake up call for chinese like sun yat sen to overturn the corrupt manchu court .

In other words, democracy works best in a society that educates all members in the meaning and relevance of democracy. England is undergoing some interesting introspection about what democracy is, and how the structures of institutions do or do not operate democratically, at the moment. Social media has created a generation that wants to press 'like/dislike', instantly, on everything. But the biggest challenge is the schism that has surfaced between citizens who take advice from 'experts' in public life vs. 'experts' on the internet.

As a minimum it needs a single ideological paradigm or system for understanding what logic is. Relativism destroys any sense that there can be an agreed outcome because inherent in relativism is the idea that there is no agreed outcome. Which is why liberalism in its current relativist form is undemocratic; it is based on hysteria and mob-rule. Everything liberals say about 'populism' as a 'far right' phenomenon actually applies to liberalism whilst those on the right are the ones who are trying to think things through intellectually not emotionally.

Read Jung Chang's EMPRESS DOWAGER book--or at least the NYRB review if you don't want to read the book itself.

Jung understands Brits did bad imperialist things but also admits how the West forced changes upon China that were necessary.

If Brits had never come to China, China would still be a land of women with bound feet.

“Brits could hardly digest India yet it was going to swallow China whole?”

Not swallow China in one fell swoop of course, but at least a big chunk of it as a start. By the beginning of the last century the sub continent of South Asia has basically been digested by the Brits and the only way to continue expand is to expand northward. That means China. By the mid thirties the Brits has diluted China’s control of Tibet to a point that the Brits already started referring to Tibet as British Tibet.

Two different subjects here. Britain's interest in Tibet could not even remotely have been as a place to make money but it had srrategic importance worth just a little investment.

As for Britain expanding north into China that is absurd. In the 19th century there were some rather unsavoury incursions from the seas to the East of China but by 1912 there was a Chinese republic and it should be recalled that China was recognised as a sovereign country which was entitled not to be invaded when the Japanese first attacked, in Manchuria, in 1931.

Or perhaps Silicon Valley and Hollywood are examples of sample bias. Disney, for sure, attracts a certain--kind-- of people, I suspect. And Silicon Valley is (I hear) wall-to-wall with H1-B foreigners.

This is not to mention that if Hollywood and SV were incinerated in unfortunate asteroid strikes, no one in America would miss a meal or suffer the shortage of any necessity. OTOH, if most of the major oil refineries, CAT & John Deere plants or electric generating plants were obliterated, famine and deprivation would soon cover North America. I'd rather examine the politics of the people who run the latter. They might have a better grasp of what makes the world turn than do people largely working in entertainment, even their techies.

PS: Didn't Disney just infamously fire their American IT people in favor of H1-B foreigner contract workers? I'm guessing that the unemployed IT people will lose a lot of their warm-and-fuzzies for Disney's Leftist-lunacy. And I'm of the view that Hollywood is run by a certain tribe, whose actions are either an amazing coincidence or a conspiracy to demoralize every Caucasian in Western Civ. How else does one explain the ubiquity of hard-left social propaganda (LGBT XYZ misandrist idiocy all?)

Excellent points. And keep in mind much of Silicon Valley is devoted to entertainment.
We need a citation for Anonymny’s comments. Showing that most STEM people are democrats.

As a minimum it needs a single ideological paradigm or system for understanding what logic is. Relativism destroys any sense that there can be an agreed outcome because inherent in relativism is the idea that there is no agreed outcome. Which is why liberalism in its current relativist form is undemocratic; it is based on hysteria and mob-rule. Everything liberals say about ‘populism’ as a ‘far right’ phenomenon actually applies to liberalism whilst those on the right are the ones who are trying to think things through intellectually not emotionally.

It may not be a fashionable view on this site but free market, spread across the world (otherwise know as globalization or global capitalism) offers the best ultimate solution to the so call existential dilemmas of Americans of a certain age, race and ideological orientation as I will explain. To many immigration hardliners on these shores (not me), the biggest demographic threat to US comes from the Mexicans (and other poor Central Americans). Trump’s insane solution is ‘The Wall’. Who will find the $250 billion to built it? The Mexicans, off course, says ‘The Savior’. What happens if the Mexicans refuse? Will US go to war with Mexico, invade their country and take $250 billion out of their treasury to built the wall? ‘The Savior’ is silent to this question.

The actual solution to the movement of people from Mexico to US is much simpler but will take longer to implement and will be effective in the long run. Encourage the Mexicans to deregulated their economy, lift tariffs, welcome outside investment, cut taxes including corporation taxes so that their country becomes a magnet for global companies and privatize inefficient state run corporations. This will encourage growth and create employment including well paid jobs and lift millions of Mexicans out of poverty. Once this happens, Mexicans will have little incentive to find work in US with all the resulting uncertainties. I have been to Mexico (before the drugs war started). It is a beautiful country with friendly people, glorious cuisine and a climate to die for, not to mention the large number of educated, cultured women who seemed to have a striking resemblance to Salma Hayek (perhaps this is my fantasy). But honestly, there is historical precedence for this. Free market and globalization has lifted around 400 million Chinese out of poverty. Chinese people are now free to travel abroad. How many millions of Chinese are rushing to immigrate to the West illegally? hardly any.

One of the side effects of globalization is that wages of Western workers are gradually being lowered significantly (in real terms) while those in high growth developing world is rising rapidly, sometimes exponentially. The more this trend continues, the less will large scale immigration from developing countries to the West be an issue. The current rush of mainly Syrian and other Middle Eastern immigrants into Europe has little to do with economics but more to do with never ending wars and devastation in their realm, usually perpetuated by various Western powers including the States .

To me your comment looks like it should be filed in the "If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail" folder.

The actual solution to the movement of people from Mexico to US is much simpler but will take longer to implement and will be effective in the long run. [standard neoliberal prescription for creating heaven on earth follows]...

OK, but can we agree to lessen Mexican immigration until Mexico implements your panacea?

Free market and globalization has lifted around 400 million Chinese out of poverty. Chinese people are now free to travel abroad. How many millions of Chinese are rushing to immigrate to the West illegally? hardly any.

Nevertheless, there are a heck of a lot of legal Chinese immigrants here now and many more rushing in. Why is that?

One of the side effects of globalization is that wages of Western workers are gradually being lowered significantly (in real terms) while those in high growth developing world is rising rapidly, sometimes exponentially.

And yet you support globalization? I guess you are not a Western worker.

"How many millions of Chinese are rushing to immigrate to the West illegally? hardly any."

Plenty in the UK. Chinese illegal immigrants don't commit much crime, so tend to only show up on the radar when there's a tragedy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Dover_incident

"It was determined that the deceased were immigrants, and likely died of asphyxiation, though carbon monoxide poisoning was not ruled out. The 60 immigrants were trapped in the container for more than 18 hours, when the outside temperature reached 32 °C (90 °F). It was confirmed by police that the deceased were Chinese illegal immigrants, 54 men and 4 women. The incident was one of the largest mass killings in British criminal history, and the largest involving immigrants entering the United Kingdom"

"Waiters, chefs and shop workers downed tools in London's Chinatown on Tuesday in a mass walkout to protest about recent raids by border control officers.

The UK Border Agency has carried out 13 raids in recent months, which Chinatown owners say were "fishing" for immigrants"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25914594

"The headlines from China were full of disbelief. "The Devil's beach," one newspaper cried. That anger grew as it became clear how desperate the victims' lives had been. Twenty-one bodies were recovered within hours, a woman's skull was washed up six years on and one man has never been found. All were working illegally, picking cockles for hours on end to send money back to their families."

opposition to the invasion from across the Med and the Rio Grande is not only propelling the Trump movement but generating rightist parties and movements across the Old Continent.

It is hard to see how this crisis resolves itself peacefully.

I’m perfectly okay with killing the globalists and elitists who have sold us out. And by “us”, I mean the working people of this country, not the lying politicians, media, wall street scum, bankers, etc. We have laws against betraying the government, but none against betraying our people. That needs to change one way or another.

John Adams reminded us, “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

The US is not a democracy, it was founded as a federal republic. Today, it is an evil fascist surveillance police state run by a corporate oligarchy.

Today, it is an evil fascist surveillance police state run by a corporate oligarchy.

I've posted the following several times previously and intend to continue to do so until folks cease perpetrating the propaganda.:

"The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali."

"Brits could hardly digest India yet it was going to swallow China whole?"

Not swallow China in one fell swoop of course, but at least a big chunk of it as a start. By the beginning of the last century the sub continent of South Asia has basically been digested by the Brits and the only way to continue expand is to expand northward. That means China. By the mid thirties the Brits has diluted China's control of Tibet to a point that the Brits already started referring to Tibet as British Tibet.

“By the mid thirties the Brits has diluted China’s control of Tibet to a point that the Brits already started referring to Tibet as British Tibet.”

That would have been one imperialism replacing another.

Tibetans would have fared better under British imperialism than under the Chinese kind.

Mongolia, once part of China, was wrested by Russia who made it independent. Probably a good thing for Mongolia in the long run.

Look at the Brits. At one point, they were sore about losing Hong Kong back to the Chinese.
They were awful proud of what they'd done with HK while Mao drove China to the ground.
But in the end, as agreed in the contract, the Brits turned over rich HK to mainland China.
In a way, it was only right because HK is made up of Chinese.

That was then, this is now.
Today, the Brits do NOTHING even when they are losing London, their own capital, to the Third World and globalist financiers.

I mean losing a Chinese city to the Chinese was one thing.
But losing your own great city to the Third World horde and Globalist cabal?

This is the mental state of the white world. It's beyond talking logic and sense to it.

It’s beyond talking logic and sense to it.

It seems to be one of the banes of having, or merely the feeling of having, a few more bucks than the next guy no matter how they’re obtained. It never ceases to astonish me how arrogant folks can get if they think they have more than the next guy, or even if they’re merely acquainted with someone who appears wealthy.

And it does seem to make their ignorance utterly impermeable to reason.

Opponents of immigration are hence subjects of abuse — labeled “racists,” “xenophobes,” “fascists,” “Nazis” and other terms of odium in the rich vocabulary of Progressive hatred.

It would better to be more precise and less threatening here. Few Americans are “opponents of immigration”. However, many Americans are opposed to the current levels of immigration.

If you get someone to admit that they are not for open borders, then it’s hard for them to accuse you of racism or xenophobia if you just say that you believe the current immigration levels are too high and should be reduced. Reduce immigration and the concomitant demographic issues will also be reduced.

Let's be a little more precise. I think what Americans are against is "illegal" immigration. The U.S. accepts over 1 million legal immigrants each year and I have not heard many complaints about this. What is a cause for concern is our "open borders policy", which supports the idea that if you can illegally enter the U.S. then you can stay. Of course, the "globalists" want to fracture the society and the corporations want cheap labor.

We don't need a wall as Trump claims. We just need to start enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants (and stop using the euphemism "undocumented") and consider adding jail terms to employers who hire illegals. With no jobs the exodus going south would be huge, we saw it happen after the 2008 financial crisis.

I'm not sure whether it is the Chinese Empire, Chinese Republic or the PRC that is being referred to but don't you think the Tibetans, subservient though they might have been to the monastic class, would have been happier with a government influenced by a handful of British officials than one which thrust millions of Han settlers on them?

The British moved to occupy Tibet because of the perceived threat that Tibet might become a Russian dependency. The activities of the Buryats (Russian subjects) Sokpo Tsеnshab Ngawang Lobsang (better known as Agvan Lobsan Dorzhiev) and Pyotr Aleksandrovich Badmayev at the court of Tsar Nicholas II are well known. Dorziev became friendly with Prince Esper Ukhtomsky, close confidante and adviser to the Tsar on matters of Eastern policy, strong advocate of the importance of Russian expansionism in the East as a basis of Russian foreign policy. He was chairman of the Russo-Chinese Bank, involved in negotiations with the Chinese regarding the route of the Trans-Siberian Railway and later became the chairman of the Chinese Eastern Railway.By the 1890s Dorzhiev was actively spreading the story that Russia was the mythical land of Shambhala to the north; that its Czar might be the one to save Buddhism and that the White Tsar was an emanation of White Tara, raising hopes that he would support Tibet and its religion. On the other hand Dorzhiev was trying to convince the Tibetans that Russia seemed to be embracing Buddhist ideas since their recent advances into Mongolia and might prove a useful balance to British intrigues. In the spring of 1900 Dorzhiev returned to Russia with six other representatives from Thubten Gyatso the 13th Dalai Lama of Tibet. They travelled through India and met the Tsar at the Livadia Palace in Crimea, returning to Lhasa with a supply of Russian arms and ammunition. He continued to work hard to bring Mongolia into the Russian orbit.

Naturally the British got seriously pissed off. Our precious 14th Dalai Lama said it:"Obviously, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama had a keen desire to establish relations with Russia, and I also think he was a little skeptical toward England at first. Then there was Dorjiev. To the English he was a spy, but in reality he was a good scholar and a sincere Buddhist monk who had great devotion to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama." If he was not a spy, he definitely was a Russian agent of influence. He went untroubled through the Revolution and actually died in Stalin's prisons suspected to be spying for the Japanese in 1938, which was probably untrue (he died of cardiac arrest in weeks after his arrest).

opposition to the invasion from across the Med and the Rio Grande is not only propelling the Trump movement but generating rightist parties and movements across the Old Continent.

It is hard to see how this crisis resolves itself peacefully.

I'm perfectly okay with killing the globalists and elitists who have sold us out. And by "us", I mean the working people of this country, not the lying politicians, media, wall street scum, bankers, etc. We have laws against betraying the government, but none against betraying our people. That needs to change one way or another.

John Adams reminded us, “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

The US is not a democracy, it was founded as a federal republic. Today, it is an evil fascist surveillance police state run by a corporate oligarchy.

The US is not a democracy, it was founded as a federal republic.

That’s the myth.

The reality is that it was always intended to be what it is today.

Today, it is an evil fascist surveillance police state run by a corporate oligarchy.

I’ve posted the following several times previously and intend to continue to do so until folks cease perpetrating the propaganda.:

“The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d’état.

It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali.”

"But in the end, as agreed in the contract, the Brits turned over rich HK to mainland China. In a way, it was only right because HK is made up of Chinese."

Except Hong Kong should never have been under British control in the first place. Thanks, invade the world/invite the world.

It was Japan that sought to destroy all of China outright.

I’d be highly interested in any hard evidence for such a claim.

I’ve long been under the impression that the Japanese imperialist crowd were mostly interested in attempting to secure themselves against relentless Western imperial encroachment by forming the Co-Prosperity Sphere, including the coastal areas of China, as a sort of mirror to the Monroe Doctrine, and getting resources wherever they could.

I don’t believe that destroying China outright was either their intent or within their capability. How would they have benefited from destroying it?

Anyway, I am always open to learn something new and to have my errors corrected, so kindly indulge me here.

I guess "destroy China outright" is not the best description.
However, what the Japanese DID do was to ruthlessly exploit China's people & resources.
Nanking is a fairly accurate reflection of Japanese attitudes to China. Massacre, Police State, arbitrary "justice", and the planned AND ad hoc /casual liquidation (& rape, enslavement & prostitution) of millions of Chinese.

It may not be a fashionable view on this site but free market, spread across the world (otherwise know as globalization or global capitalism) offers the best ultimate solution to the so call existential dilemmas of Americans of a certain age, race and ideological orientation as I will explain. To many immigration hardliners on these shores (not me), the biggest demographic threat to US comes from the Mexicans (and other poor Central Americans). Trump's insane solution is 'The Wall'. Who will find the $250 billion to built it? The Mexicans, off course, says 'The Savior'. What happens if the Mexicans refuse? Will US go to war with Mexico, invade their country and take $250 billion out of their treasury to built the wall? 'The Savior' is silent to this question.

The actual solution to the movement of people from Mexico to US is much simpler but will take longer to implement and will be effective in the long run. Encourage the Mexicans to deregulated their economy, lift tariffs, welcome outside investment, cut taxes including corporation taxes so that their country becomes a magnet for global companies and privatize inefficient state run corporations. This will encourage growth and create employment including well paid jobs and lift millions of Mexicans out of poverty. Once this happens, Mexicans will have little incentive to find work in US with all the resulting uncertainties. I have been to Mexico (before the drugs war started). It is a beautiful country with friendly people, glorious cuisine and a climate to die for, not to mention the large number of educated, cultured women who seemed to have a striking resemblance to Salma Hayek (perhaps this is my fantasy). But honestly, there is historical precedence for this. Free market and globalization has lifted around 400 million Chinese out of poverty. Chinese people are now free to travel abroad. How many millions of Chinese are rushing to immigrate to the West illegally? hardly any.

One of the side effects of globalization is that wages of Western workers are gradually being lowered significantly (in real terms) while those in high growth developing world is rising rapidly, sometimes exponentially. The more this trend continues, the less will large scale immigration from developing countries to the West be an issue. The current rush of mainly Syrian and other Middle Eastern immigrants into Europe has little to do with economics but more to do with never ending wars and devastation in their realm, usually perpetuated by various Western powers including the States .

To me your comment looks like it should be filed in the “If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail” folder.

The actual solution to the movement of people from Mexico to US is much simpler but will take longer to implement and will be effective in the long run. [standard neoliberal prescription for creating heaven on earth follows]…

OK, but can we agree to lessen Mexican immigration until Mexico implements your panacea?

Free market and globalization has lifted around 400 million Chinese out of poverty. Chinese people are now free to travel abroad. How many millions of Chinese are rushing to immigrate to the West illegally? hardly any.

Nevertheless, there are a heck of a lot of legal Chinese immigrants here now and many more rushing in. Why is that?

One of the side effects of globalization is that wages of Western workers are gradually being lowered significantly (in real terms) while those in high growth developing world is rising rapidly, sometimes exponentially.

And yet you support globalization? I guess you are not a Western worker.

That should net our Treasury at least a cool two to three trillion, and put our ship of state back on course.

Not to defend the wars, but "two to three trillion" is chump change compared to the 200 trillion plus of unfunded liabilities and 64 trillion of total credit in the system.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TCMDO

The fools have promised that we can "grow" our way out of the trouble. Add GDP to the graph in the above link and if you have any reasonable level of mathematical ability you will see that that is a lie.

We had a "blue ribbon" panel of economists a few years ago examine the books and they said we needed some combination of a 58% cut in spending or a 38% tax increase to begin digging out of the hole. That paper went down the "memory hole".

Pointing and screeching at your designated bad guys just shows you do not understand the problem.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

And I’d like to point out that Mencken would no doubt agree that applies especially to the answer called “government.”

As to our debt woes, I don’t think it’s complex problem at all, and I think alexander makes many good points, so the Mencken quote probably doesn’t apply.

john pilger,
*There are times when one tragedy, one crime tells us how a whole system works behind its democratic facade and helps us to understand how much of the world is run for the benefit of the powerful and how governments lie. To understand the catastrophe of Iraq, and all the other Iraq’s along imperial history’s trail of blood and tears, one need look no further than Diego Garcia. *

as per the dictionary for the politically incorrect,
*democracy is a system whereby the elected leaders are given a free hand to do shit stuffs ,
like this., this., this. [1]

Today, it is an evil fascist surveillance police state run by a corporate oligarchy.

I've posted the following several times previously and intend to continue to do so until folks cease perpetrating the propaganda.:

"The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali."

Today, it is an evil fascist surveillance police state run by a corporate oligarchy.

I've posted the following several times previously and intend to continue to do so until folks cease perpetrating the propaganda.:

"The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali."

Yeah sure, JS, because predictions of the future are always so accurate, they knew exactly how it would turn out.

I never said that predictions were always accurate, but if you'd read them, you'd be shocked at how prescient they were.

Actually, any familiarity with history and basic human behavior would allow a person to make reasonably good predictions along those lines, I'm sure. The only things new under the sun are the particular names of the usual perps.

It's all basically one huge, continuous fraud. And one doesn't have to be a "kunspirasee theerist" to get it.

Since 1964 (silver) and 1971 (gold) the US dollar has free-floated against…nothing. No consistent benchmark existed. This freed the monetary authorities to embark on the greatest credit bubble binge in the History of Man.

Think about that for a moment. The main growth in what people consider WEALTH today has been someone borrowing money, issuing IOUs (bonds) and buying whatever suited their fancy…in the case of politicians, they all bought re-election, which is why the USA’s Congressional re-election rate is higher than was the return of incumbents to the Soviet Politburo. Borrow, squander the money, and everyone feels wealthier. What’s not to like?!

The last 30-50 years have been One Mass Delusion. Wealth was “created,” not by making something useful, but by BORROWING MONEY from NOWHERE (fiat credit creation) and issuing the IOU into the Bond Ocean.

No wonder the cost of everything NOT produced outside the USA has skyrocketed while the prices for stocks, land, houses, etc. have kept the skyrocket’s pace, too.

Only wages have stagnated, because the labor market was flooded with “supply” from outside. Thank “Heaven” for globalism keeping wages and consumer prices low, otherwise we might have realized this was a mistake all along and acted to halt it before catastrophe was baked into the cake.

We’ve had 35 years of massive credit inflation, and the effect is a perception that everyone is rich (because they’re promised pensions, Medicare/Medicaid, Soc. Security, and repayment on the IOU’s sitting in their retirement accounts.)

What happens when all that inflation evaporates? Banknote inflation is sticky: print up a bunch of Zimbabwe Dollars and unless they’re lost in a fire, they remain in physical form to compete with all other Zimbabwe Dollars in the market.

Oh, but DEBT? Debt’s value floats! The bonds worth $10,000 in 10 years from now at ZIRP are worth a tiny fraction of that if interest rates rise. Their present value can shrink right before your eyes, just as it rose for the last 30 years. What the Bond Gods give, the Bond Gods can take back.

And
They
Will. Sooner or later. The consequences should be 12 on the Richter Scale.

PS: Those who say central bankers will just keep rates low forever misunderstand that suppression of rates is only possible if sentiment is aligned. Once sentiment toward rising debt turns, nothing the Fed’s pet economists can do will keep bond prices high and rates low. Once that trend reverses, all roads lead to a catastrophic decline in perceived wealth, and all the downstream consequences thereof.

Yeah sure, JS, because predictions of the future are always so accurate, they knew exactly how it would turn out.

Yeah sure, JS, because predictions of the future are always so accurate, they knew exactly how it would turn out.

I never said that predictions were always accurate, but if you’d read them, you’d be shocked at how prescient they were.

Actually, any familiarity with history and basic human behavior would allow a person to make reasonably good predictions along those lines, I’m sure. The only things new under the sun are the particular names of the usual perps.

It’s all basically one huge, continuous fraud. And one doesn’t have to be a “kunspirasee theerist” to get it.

john pilger,
*There are times when one tragedy, one crime tells us how a whole system works behind its democratic facade and helps us to understand how much of the world is run for the benefit of the powerful and how governments lie. To understand the catastrophe of Iraq, and all the other Iraq's along imperial history's trail of blood and tears, one need look no further than Diego Garcia. *

as per the dictionary for the politically incorrect,*democracy is a system whereby the elected leaders are given a free hand to do shit stuffs ,
like this., this., this. [1]

here's another view of democracy as per
dictionary for the politically incorrect,*democracy is a system whereby the psychopaths make decisions,
the peasants are reduced to doing analysis.*

karl rove
*We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.*

While I like Buchanan’s take on war, military interventionism and nation building, he reveals a lot by quoting John C. Calhoun, who believed slavery was a “positive good.” Let’s look closely at Calhoun’s view:

The country would divide into two parties, Calhoun said. One would be the party of those who pay the taxes to government, the other the party of those who consume the benefits of government.

Let’s dissect this from the slave’s point of view. First, what is government? From the slave’s point of view, his government was massa, the overseer and patrollers. Clearly, it was the slave who paid taxes to this government to the tune of 100% of his labor minus the bare necessities of life. That this tax was unaccounted did not make it any less real. Who received the benefits of this government and of the state and federal governments that protected it? John C. Calhoun’s planter class.

Now, let’s examine today’s system and the hidden, unaccounted taxes of today. We have large corporations with overwhelming economic and political power granted (delegated) to them through government charters. Individual human beings who would be suppliers to (workers for) such corporations or consumers of its products have little ability to negotiate with these large corporations when there’s a large pool of qualified, unemployed workers and the corporation (wisely) refuses to saturate the market with product. Sure, mom and pop can open a store of their own, but the large corporate retailer can easily drive them out of business by temporarily selling below cost. If your ideology tells you this doesn’t happen, you need a dose of the real world. Thus do those with excessive political/economic power granted to them by government extract wealth from individual workers and customers. Though some would call such wealth extraction “rent,” it is equally valid to view it as a hidden, unaccounted “tax,” since the power extracting it is delegated from and therefore a part of government. Let’s be clear too that the “taxes” paid by corporations to the official government are just a small portion of the hidden taxes they extract from the individuals and smaller (less powerful) corporations they deal with. Corporations are actually quite similar in function to the “tax farmers” employed by such as the Ottoman Empire.

Granted, the hidden taxes extracted from individuals today is far less onerous than the productivity extracted from slaves, but it needs to be accounted for when dividing the population into “those who pay the taxes” and “those who consume the benefits.”

An interesting line of thought to follow, though I think, to start with, you exaggerate considerably the quasi taxing power conferred or delegated by government to the corporate sector

Let me float an idea or two from other angles.

One is that it is the US dollar's reserve status and the fact of $US investments being the ultimate safe haven that is much more the cause of middle and working class discontents than any machinations of the 0.01 per cent. Offshoring jobs - which is surely as much Christian as capitalist unless we believe that real poverty in Asia shouldn't be relieved at the expense of Americans living less well than their parents - wouldn't occur if the dollar had never risen in exchange value above half (or whatever) where it is now.

Another is specially for anti-Fed fanatics - and could be elucidated better no doubt by Sam Shama. It is to point out that money and credit are virtually identical (although not all forms of either are identical in their impact).

In the contemporary world there is always vast latent spending power and turning spending power into GDP which is so widely used as the criterion of economuc health is the not so easy trick in a rich ageing society.

Every house that is less than fully mortgaged is a potential source of spending power. Anyone with a good salary could get a low interest loan today to support the starting of a business. And government credit is still very good as proven by interest rates.

A slight divergence perhaps, but it is sad that the intellect of American politicians hasn't trumped ideology and emotion and embraced good long term low interest debt to fix and build American infrastructure while employing Americans.

The Fed has in fact been left by politicians to make up for their inadequacies but can't get far pushing in a piece of string however glittering. I am not sure how getting the Fed out of the way and leaving money creation (again - as before 1812 and 1911 ??) to the private sector would help anything. Me, I'ld settle for payment in bills of exchange written by Google and accepted by Apple. The trouble is their credit would be so appealing that they would be tempted to flood the market with promises to pay in US dollars and off we would go on a merry go round again that would make historians talk of South Sea Bubble and Tulip Mania

The Federal Government doesn't print any money at all, the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) does. The Fed is not owned by the Federal Government, the names are similar to create the illusion that they are one and the same when in fact they are not.

While I like Buchanan's take on war, military interventionism and nation building, he reveals a lot by quoting John C. Calhoun, who believed slavery was a "positive good." Let's look closely at Calhoun's view:

The country would divide into two parties, Calhoun said. One would be the party of those who pay the taxes to government, the other the party of those who consume the benefits of government.

Let's dissect this from the slave's point of view. First, what is government? From the slave's point of view, his government was massa, the overseer and patrollers. Clearly, it was the slave who paid taxes to this government to the tune of 100% of his labor minus the bare necessities of life. That this tax was unaccounted did not make it any less real. Who received the benefits of this government and of the state and federal governments that protected it? John C. Calhoun's planter class.

Now, let's examine today's system and the hidden, unaccounted taxes of today. We have large corporations with overwhelming economic and political power granted (delegated) to them through government charters. Individual human beings who would be suppliers to (workers for) such corporations or consumers of its products have little ability to negotiate with these large corporations when there's a large pool of qualified, unemployed workers and the corporation (wisely) refuses to saturate the market with product. Sure, mom and pop can open a store of their own, but the large corporate retailer can easily drive them out of business by temporarily selling below cost. If your ideology tells you this doesn't happen, you need a dose of the real world. Thus do those with excessive political/economic power granted to them by government extract wealth from individual workers and customers. Though some would call such wealth extraction "rent," it is equally valid to view it as a hidden, unaccounted "tax," since the power extracting it is delegated from and therefore a part of government. Let's be clear too that the "taxes" paid by corporations to the official government are just a small portion of the hidden taxes they extract from the individuals and smaller (less powerful) corporations they deal with. Corporations are actually quite similar in function to the "tax farmers" employed by such as the Ottoman Empire.

Granted, the hidden taxes extracted from individuals today is far less onerous than the productivity extracted from slaves, but it needs to be accounted for when dividing the population into "those who pay the taxes" and "those who consume the benefits."

Now that is one durn sweet set of points.

Wage, debt, and tax slavery are all too real concepts and sadly ignored or even defended by many of the slaves themselves.

That will be the financial low. The economic/social lows will depend on just how stupid the politicians of that time become.

I really think that things have gone so far that there is little the politicians can do to alter the course beyond trying to avoid an all-out nuclear exchange (not a small thing).

War is coming and it will be a doozy. I believe the probability of biological weapons of mass destruction being used is a near certainty as is a nuclear exchange between some of the smaller players.

We live in interesting times.

I don’t know if it’ll be intranational from financial collapse or breakdown of civil society or international nuclear annihilation due to neocon Russophobic missteps. Right now, with huge debt and wild-ass spending, along with a tenuous financial system and fiat currency, I’m betting on the former. The vast majority of Americans are fully reliant on the 18 wheelers you see all-day long on the interstates. Imagine how quickly social breakdown will occur when they stop.
And the federal government can’t force these industries to keep going, and the paper-pushing bureaucrats at the totally worthless FEMA can only hold meeting and make suggestions.

Since the federal government can print all the money it needs, it can't go bankrupt the way, say, Puerto Rico or General Motors can. Other than that, Buchanan's argument is sound.

The Federal Government doesn’t print any money at all, the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) does. The Fed is not owned by the Federal Government, the names are similar to create the illusion that they are one and the same when in fact they are not.

To point out that what governments like America's do instead of reneging on debt is to allow inflation to do the job might add value - and possibly some expert comment on hypothetical alternatives if any.

The Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress, so, in a sense, the federal government does own the Fed. In the unlikely event the private market for U.S. debt disappeared, Congress could simply pass a law that requires the Fed to buy Treasury bonds directly from the U.S. Treasury, thereby staving off federal government bankruptcy and giving the government unlimited spending power.

here’s another view of democracy as perdictionary for the politically incorrect,
*democracy is a system whereby the psychopaths make decisions,
the peasants are reduced to doing analysis.*

karl rove
*We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.*

Non-white immigration – legal, illegal, or “refugees” – to the west is the greatest possible threat to Europe, America-Canada and Australia. It is quite literally suicide. Civilizational suicide. Western society requires westerners. A western society can not be composed of Arabs, Pakistanis, Africans, Orientals etc. Rome followed a similar path to destruction; “And physically, large tracts of land were taken over by alien peoples. This showed up a century later in cultural and social disintegration”.

Re:Rome ? You could argue the opposite. From Republican times it was Rome's relative inclusiveness which was one of its greatest strengths.
I suspect your quote refers to the later Empire. My understanding (not great admittedly) is that Rome's various responses to those people movements were largely forced on them by other circumstances: ie, it's general inability to cope with all its problems/enemies at any one time.

Trump says the system is rigged. Obama says it is not. I say it is rigged, and Obama is part of the rigging. He is the rigger-in-chief. In fact, he is one crazy rigger.

By the way, if the system is not rigged, why do Obama and Hillary say that something must be done about ‘white privilege’? The very concept implies that the system is indeed rigged in favor of whites.
Of course, the funny thing is the system is rigged in favor of privileged whites who make the most noise about how ‘white privilege’ must end.
When rich whites whine about ‘white privilege’, they are trying to secure and expand their own privilege by sacrificing whites without privilege who are to be discriminated against in favor of non-whites. Those who denounce ‘white privilege’ do not target whites with privilege. If anything, whites with privilege mouth PC slogans and pay off the right kind of people. The final agreement is to sacrifice the basic rights of whites-without-privilege in favor of Diversity.

sadly none of this would be happening if western people were having children. but you fell for the bait. playing sex and the city in real life , partying like a teen until 42 when its too late or putting it off until you complete your 3rd toilet paper phd . or worse , cashing it all in for oxycontin. having kids is so natural and such a joy , im amazed it was so easy to deter a couple of generations from doing so.

Agreed, but it is hard work too and requires sacrifice. Something that, as you pointed out, doesn't mesh with one's life when they're only concerned about the next Tinder hook-up. Microwaves can cook your food faster, the human child still requires years and years of dedicated upbringing.

I would say the biggest threat to this country is one in which Mr Buchanan is part of and works for, the Roman Catholic Church. You have our government chocked full of papists who owe their allegiance to no one but their "vicar of Christ", who is a king of his own country, and has his own set of "laws" that all "Catholics" hold in higher regard than the laws of this country. Kick all who owe allegiance to foreign powers out of our government, and then, and only then will America become recognizable.

This isn’t the Evangilical fundamentalist Church of the anti evolution gospel in hillbilly holler.

Are you of the holy rollers speaking in tongues sect or the rattle snake handler reincarnation of the Salem witch burners ?

I would say the biggest threat to this country is one in which Mr Buchanan is part of and works for, the Roman Catholic Church. You have our government chocked full of papists who owe their allegiance to no one but their "vicar of Christ", who is a king of his own country, and has his own set of "laws" that all "Catholics" hold in higher regard than the laws of this country. Kick all who owe allegiance to foreign powers out of our government, and then, and only then will America become recognizable.

Randle, what about the Jews who owe allegiance to Israel and approximately one million dual Israeli/ American citizens resident in this country? I’ve never heard of dual Vatican/American citizens. Then there are at least one hundred million Chinese, Mexican, African, Indian and citizens of every country in the world residing in America.

Are you a confederate revanchists still muttering that the south will rise again? Are you one of the confederate revanchists that claim that the only reason the slave holders lost the civil war is because the Pope send ships full of Irish catholic mercenaries to America because the Pope wanted to destroy the confederacy?

Or are you one of those southern Evangelical Protestants who claims there is a conference room in the Vatican cellar where the Pope and the devil meet regularly to plot the destruction of
Protestants?

I was scarcely aware of the Catholic Church until I started reading pro White conservative websites on the Internet
Then I found all sorts of nonsense posted by southern Protestants who still think you lost the civil war because of Irish and German Catholic draftees in the Union army

The Federal Government doesn't print any money at all, the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) does. The Fed is not owned by the Federal Government, the names are similar to create the illusion that they are one and the same when in fact they are not.

And what follows from the truth of your quibble?

To point out that what governments like America’s do instead of reneging on debt is to allow inflation to do the job might add value – and possibly some expert comment on hypothetical alternatives if any.

I see the federal reserve as a tool to help stabilize our economy and try to keep it on an even keel by regulating the liquidity within the system.

When the housing bubble burst and the subprime fiasco hit hard, our entire economy could have seized up completely.

It almost did.

The massive losses in home values by the housing correction led to a dramatic shut down in consumer spending.

nobody wants to buy goods or services if they feel their home is worth a third of what it was yesterday.

This sentiment had a cascading effect throughout the entire economy ....all businesses got hurt, small and large alike ....when the malls are vacant, the restaurants are empty, and nobody can sell a car because nobody wants to buy one....it is profoundly disruptive to everyone.

The feds actions, lowering interest rates to zero ,was an attempt to encourage consumer spending by making it almost painful to keep your money in the bank.

If your savings account or your six month CD yields half a percent in interest(at best), maybe going out and buying that new toaster or refrigerator is not such a bad idea.

These actions stimulated spending and reignited the engine of the economy.

While I like Buchanan's take on war, military interventionism and nation building, he reveals a lot by quoting John C. Calhoun, who believed slavery was a "positive good." Let's look closely at Calhoun's view:

The country would divide into two parties, Calhoun said. One would be the party of those who pay the taxes to government, the other the party of those who consume the benefits of government.

Let's dissect this from the slave's point of view. First, what is government? From the slave's point of view, his government was massa, the overseer and patrollers. Clearly, it was the slave who paid taxes to this government to the tune of 100% of his labor minus the bare necessities of life. That this tax was unaccounted did not make it any less real. Who received the benefits of this government and of the state and federal governments that protected it? John C. Calhoun's planter class.

Now, let's examine today's system and the hidden, unaccounted taxes of today. We have large corporations with overwhelming economic and political power granted (delegated) to them through government charters. Individual human beings who would be suppliers to (workers for) such corporations or consumers of its products have little ability to negotiate with these large corporations when there's a large pool of qualified, unemployed workers and the corporation (wisely) refuses to saturate the market with product. Sure, mom and pop can open a store of their own, but the large corporate retailer can easily drive them out of business by temporarily selling below cost. If your ideology tells you this doesn't happen, you need a dose of the real world. Thus do those with excessive political/economic power granted to them by government extract wealth from individual workers and customers. Though some would call such wealth extraction "rent," it is equally valid to view it as a hidden, unaccounted "tax," since the power extracting it is delegated from and therefore a part of government. Let's be clear too that the "taxes" paid by corporations to the official government are just a small portion of the hidden taxes they extract from the individuals and smaller (less powerful) corporations they deal with. Corporations are actually quite similar in function to the "tax farmers" employed by such as the Ottoman Empire.

Granted, the hidden taxes extracted from individuals today is far less onerous than the productivity extracted from slaves, but it needs to be accounted for when dividing the population into "those who pay the taxes" and "those who consume the benefits."

An interesting line of thought to follow, though I think, to start with, you exaggerate considerably the quasi taxing power conferred or delegated by government to the corporate sector

Let me float an idea or two from other angles.

One is that it is the US dollar’s reserve status and the fact of $US investments being the ultimate safe haven that is much more the cause of middle and working class discontents than any machinations of the 0.01 per cent. Offshoring jobs – which is surely as much Christian as capitalist unless we believe that real poverty in Asia shouldn’t be relieved at the expense of Americans living less well than their parents – wouldn’t occur if the dollar had never risen in exchange value above half (or whatever) where it is now.

Another is specially for anti-Fed fanatics – and could be elucidated better no doubt by Sam Shama. It is to point out that money and credit are virtually identical (although not all forms of either are identical in their impact).

In the contemporary world there is always vast latent spending power and turning spending power into GDP which is so widely used as the criterion of economuc health is the not so easy trick in a rich ageing society.

Every house that is less than fully mortgaged is a potential source of spending power. Anyone with a good salary could get a low interest loan today to support the starting of a business. And government credit is still very good as proven by interest rates.

A slight divergence perhaps, but it is sad that the intellect of American politicians hasn’t trumped ideology and emotion and embraced good long term low interest debt to fix and build American infrastructure while employing Americans.

The Fed has in fact been left by politicians to make up for their inadequacies but can’t get far pushing in a piece of string however glittering. I am not sure how getting the Fed out of the way and leaving money creation (again – as before 1812 and 1911 ??) to the private sector would help anything. Me, I’ld settle for payment in bills of exchange written by Google and accepted by Apple. The trouble is their credit would be so appealing that they would be tempted to flood the market with promises to pay in US dollars and off we would go on a merry go round again that would make historians talk of South Sea Bubble and Tulip Mania

you exaggerate considerably the quasi taxing power conferred or delegated by government to the corporate sector

I did not fully expand the logic of how grants of limited liability lead to the enormous disproportionate power corporations have over individuals. Within this short post, I'll simply point out that joint stock corporations are not possible without a grant of some sort of limited liability, as no investor is going to put at risk his entire net worth by investing in an enterprise over which he has no real day to day control. Some may benefit, though I'm sure you'll find ideological reasons to disagree with my more robust discussion at http://mosquitocloud.net/limited-liability-corporatisms-original-sin

Offshoring jobs – which is surely as much Christian as capitalist unless we believe that real poverty in Asia shouldn’t be relieved

I've got no problem with sharing the wealth, but that's not what's happening. If the rights of workers to organize were truly protected in places like El Salvador, China and Bangladesh, their wages and working conditions would be far closer to what US workers came to expect as a result of the New Deal. There is nothing Christian about death squads and assassination such as what's been going on in Honduras since Hillary's neo-liberal coup there. I can spare the crocodile tears, thank you.

Every house that is less than fully mortgaged is a potential source of spending power.

Oh, my. Are you not aware that re-fi's to pull cash out of housing was one of the contributing factors to the meltdown in 2008?

Anyone with a good salary could get a low interest loan today to support the starting of a business.

First, why would you want to start a risky small business if you already have a "good salary?" Second, how is your "good salary" relevant if your plan is to quit your job so you can run the business? Finally, are you aware of the failure rate of small businesses? And if it does fail, all you're left with is the debt, as banks are unlikely to give your little LLC, LLP or S corp a loan unless you personally co-sign.

it is sad that the intellect of American politicians hasn’t trumped ideology and emotion

You've certainly got that right.

I am not sure how getting the Fed out of the way and leaving money creation (again – as before 1812 and 1911 ??) to the private sector would help anything.

The Fed is private sector. It is owned by the big banks and serves their interests. It's my personal opinion after much thought that the private creation of pseudo-money through a fraudulent private fractional reserve banking system is the root cause of 1) instability in the pseudo-money supply, 2) the boom-bust cycle, 3) the need for government bailouts or other interventions to inject real money into the economy and 4) the end result of long-term chronic inflation. The fraud was somewhat necessary as long as deflation/depression was guaranteed by a limited supply of specie based on precious metals, but became unnecessary with the advent of paper money not tied to gold or silver.

I believe a more rational approach would be to limit money creation to the government treasury's minting/engraving of specie to fund long-term investments in such as infrastructure and education (not non-productive military production or war). Such increases in specie should be kept in conformity with resultant measured increases in capital equipment/durable goods and individual human productivity. If the government's treasury thus increases the supply of specie as productivity rises, fractional reserve banking could be banned as fraud, requiring a 1:1 ratio of loans to capital reserves. This would stabilize the money supply. But that's just my opinion and an argument for another day.

". I am not sure how getting the Fed out of the way and leaving money creation (again – as before 1812 and 1911 ??) to the private sector would help anything"
Sorry, but essentially the private sector DOES do the money creation. Every time a bank issues a loan it "creates" money--as long as it maintains legal reserves it can theoretically loan for ever (The Bank of England notoriously admitted this).
Sad thing is, Congress has the legal power to issue debt-free money, but chooses rather to debt in-serf future generations (via bond sales) and enrich (engorge) the 0.01%.

"Tibetans would have fared better under British imperialism than under the Chinese kind."

This is the kind of MSM nonsense that is seldom challenged. But I can understand why.

"Mongolia, once part of China, was wrested by Russia who made it independent. Probably a good thing for Mongolia in the long run."

I am sure if Mongolia is still part of China, the MSM would have said Mongolia was never part of China and it was invaded by China.

I’m not sure whether it is the Chinese Empire, Chinese Republic or the PRC that is being referred to but don’t you think the Tibetans, subservient though they might have been to the monastic class, would have been happier with a government influenced by a handful of British officials than one which thrust millions of Han settlers on them?

"Brits could hardly digest India yet it was going to swallow China whole?"

Not swallow China in one fell swoop of course, but at least a big chunk of it as a start. By the beginning of the last century the sub continent of South Asia has basically been digested by the Brits and the only way to continue expand is to expand northward. That means China. By the mid thirties the Brits has diluted China's control of Tibet to a point that the Brits already started referring to Tibet as British Tibet.

Two different subjects here. Britain’s interest in Tibet could not even remotely have been as a place to make money but it had srrategic importance worth just a little investment.

As for Britain expanding north into China that is absurd. In the 19th century there were some rather unsavoury incursions from the seas to the East of China but by 1912 there was a Chinese republic and it should be recalled that China was recognised as a sovereign country which was entitled not to be invaded when the Japanese first attacked, in Manchuria, in 1931.

As a minimum it needs a single ideological paradigm or system for understanding what logic is. Relativism destroys any sense that there can be an agreed outcome because inherent in relativism is the idea that there is no agreed outcome. Which is why liberalism in its current relativist form is undemocratic; it is based on hysteria and mob-rule. Everything liberals say about 'populism' as a 'far right' phenomenon actually applies to liberalism whilst those on the right are the ones who are trying to think things through intellectually not emotionally.

I agree. The closer grouped a society is in IQ, morality and civility the better chance democracy has.

Opponents of immigration are hence subjects of abuse — labeled “racists,” “xenophobes,” “fascists,” “Nazis” and other terms of odium in the rich vocabulary of Progressive hatred.

It would better to be more precise and less threatening here. Few Americans are "opponents of immigration". However, many Americans are opposed to the current levels of immigration.

If you get someone to admit that they are not for open borders, then it's hard for them to accuse you of racism or xenophobia if you just say that you believe the current immigration levels are too high and should be reduced. Reduce immigration and the concomitant demographic issues will also be reduced.

“Few Americans are “opponents of immigration””

Let’s be a little more precise. I think what Americans are against is “illegal” immigration. The U.S. accepts over 1 million legal immigrants each year and I have not heard many complaints about this. What is a cause for concern is our “open borders policy”, which supports the idea that if you can illegally enter the U.S. then you can stay. Of course, the “globalists” want to fracture the society and the corporations want cheap labor.

We don’t need a wall as Trump claims. We just need to start enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants (and stop using the euphemism “undocumented”) and consider adding jail terms to employers who hire illegals. With no jobs the exodus going south would be huge, we saw it happen after the 2008 financial crisis.

"We just need to start enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants (and stop using the euphemism “undocumented”) and consider adding jail terms to employers who hire illegals. "
On point. Considering the amount of money the US have allegedly spent on "protecting the homeland," only a conscious decision on the top in the US government could have allowed the free infiltration of the US borders by potential cheap labor.

If we enforced the laws against employing illegals the entire food industry would collapse. From the nurseries that produce the seeds from every farm and ranch in the country through the slaughter houses and processing plants from the mega distribution warehouses to every supermarket and restaurant in the country the food industry is the biggest employer of illegals

I know there are a few mom and pop restaurants in remote rural areas run by White families that employ only Whites but the food industry is the enemy of Whites because it doesn't employ Whites.

Another major enemy is medicine Medicine employs both legal non White immigrant Drs nurses and t chnucians and illegals in cleaning and hospital cafeterias.

Computers, engineering and other tech jobs are pretty much no White American need apply. Go to Redmond Wa or anywhere in Silicon Valley and all you will see is non White immigrants in tech jobs.

"Tibetans would have fared better under British imperialism than under the Chinese kind."

This is the kind of MSM nonsense that is seldom challenged. But I can understand why.

"Mongolia, once part of China, was wrested by Russia who made it independent. Probably a good thing for Mongolia in the long run."

I am sure if Mongolia is still part of China, the MSM would have said Mongolia was never part of China and it was invaded by China.

The British moved to occupy Tibet because of the perceived threat that Tibet might become a Russian dependency. The activities of the Buryats (Russian subjects) Sokpo Tsеnshab Ngawang Lobsang (better known as Agvan Lobsan Dorzhiev) and Pyotr Aleksandrovich Badmayev at the court of Tsar Nicholas II are well known.
Dorziev became friendly with Prince Esper Ukhtomsky, close confidante and adviser to the Tsar on matters of Eastern policy, strong advocate of the importance of Russian expansionism in the East as a basis of Russian foreign policy. He was chairman of the Russo-Chinese Bank, involved in negotiations with the Chinese regarding the route of the Trans-Siberian Railway and later became the chairman of the Chinese Eastern Railway.
By the 1890s Dorzhiev was actively spreading the story that Russia was the mythical land of Shambhala to the north; that its Czar might be the one to save Buddhism and that the White Tsar was an emanation of White Tara, raising hopes that he would support Tibet and its religion. On the other hand Dorzhiev was trying to convince the Tibetans that Russia seemed to be embracing Buddhist ideas since their recent advances into Mongolia and might prove a useful balance to British intrigues. In the spring of 1900 Dorzhiev returned to Russia with six other representatives from Thubten Gyatso the 13th Dalai Lama of Tibet. They travelled through India and met the Tsar at the Livadia Palace in Crimea, returning to Lhasa with a supply of Russian arms and ammunition. He continued to work hard to bring Mongolia into the Russian orbit.

Naturally the British got seriously pissed off. Our precious 14th Dalai Lama said it:
“Obviously, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama had a keen desire to establish relations with Russia, and I also think he was a little skeptical toward England at first. Then there was Dorjiev. To the English he was a spy, but in reality he was a good scholar and a sincere Buddhist monk who had great devotion to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama.” If he was not a spy, he definitely was a Russian agent of influence. He went untroubled through the Revolution and actually died in Stalin’s prisons suspected to be spying for the Japanese in 1938, which was probably untrue (he died of cardiac arrest in weeks after his arrest).

here's another view of democracy as per
dictionary for the politically incorrect,*democracy is a system whereby the psychopaths make decisions,
the peasants are reduced to doing analysis.*

karl rove
*We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.*

sorry, my english is limited, so i settle for 'cut n paste' !

I like that even better than Ambrose Bierce’s definition…

“Democracy is four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

Or perhaps Silicon Valley and Hollywood are examples of sample bias. Disney, for sure, attracts a certain--kind-- of people, I suspect. And Silicon Valley is (I hear) wall-to-wall with H1-B foreigners.

This is not to mention that if Hollywood and SV were incinerated in unfortunate asteroid strikes, no one in America would miss a meal or suffer the shortage of any necessity. OTOH, if most of the major oil refineries, CAT & John Deere plants or electric generating plants were obliterated, famine and deprivation would soon cover North America. I'd rather examine the politics of the people who run the latter. They might have a better grasp of what makes the world turn than do people largely working in entertainment, even their techies.

PS: Didn't Disney just infamously fire their American IT people in favor of H1-B foreigner contract workers? I'm guessing that the unemployed IT people will lose a lot of their warm-and-fuzzies for Disney's Leftist-lunacy. And I'm of the view that Hollywood is run by a certain tribe, whose actions are either an amazing coincidence or a conspiracy to demoralize every Caucasian in Western Civ. How else does one explain the ubiquity of hard-left social propaganda (LGBT XYZ misandrist idiocy all?)

“I’m guessing that the unemployed IT people will lose a lot of their warm-and-fuzzies for Disney’s Leftist-lunacy.”
You really believe that corporations care about political affiliation? When Ronald Reagan gave a blanket amnesty to the hordes of illegal migrants, was he really a hard-left socialist or was he a servant to the US corporations (and more) and their desires of cheap labor? What kind of patriotism the exceptional 1-percenters have been showing by demolishing the US industries and hiring instead the cheap labor abroad (and not being punished for this at all?) Perhaps if this country were more democratic, it would stop waging the idiotic wars of aggression for the benefits of major warmongers and instead invest in great projects at home – these projects would re-channel the trillions of dollars to creating a massive amount of jobs for the US citizenry. Instead we have 1%.
The Pentagon can’t account for $6.5 trillion – and this is just for the last 10 years. And yet they are not able to protect the US borders (to do their job). Funny. Have they really tried? After 9/11 we had 7 years of GOP administration (remember Cheney and Rove – do they look like Libs?) and almost 8 years of DEMs administration (do extrajudicial renditions and persecution of whistleblowers look peachy-liberal for you?) Should not we honestly admit that the US government is a government of corporations and for corporations?
The popular reaction in Europe towards violation of EU borders by refugees and migrants is negative, meaning that the democratic intuition of Europeans is against the US plans to dump the consequences of the US idiotic policies in the Middle East on Europeans. Were these idiotic policies conceived by the US citizenry at large? – No. What about the US citizenry desire to have universal health care by paying taxes directly to a Government of the People instead of the blood0sucking insurance companies? What about Monsanto making its rules in Congress … or Oilmen making their rules for fracking? That Mrs. Clinton calls herself a democrat only shows the sorry state of democracy in the US. This is the problem.

The mass of humanity behaves as a herd, and the herd following predictable cycles.

The only thing not (entirely) predictable was the height to which this unholy marriage of monetary-system madness and pathological optimism could be flogged.

Today we have a world addicted to:
1. Using debt to create the illusion of having wealth while consuming it, too.
2. Pulling future consumption into the present.
3. Ignoring the fact that future wealth production requires capital maintenance today.
4. Believing that a promise to be paid $10 in ten years is the same as having $10 today (in terms of purchasing power.)

Excess debt will be defaulted upon or its value will collapse as interest rates must eventually rise. The real issue is that so much of what we take for granted today rests on the perception of astronomical wealth sitting in that Ocean of IOU's.

Inevitable defaults and rate increases will have the effect of evaporating vast quantities of the "wealth" now believed to exist in that Bond Ocean. Once the process finally begins, any attempts to re-fill the Ocean (with new credit/borrowing) will have the paradoxical effect of increasing the evaporation of wealth.

Either the brilliant minds working for the Fed know this (and are preparing their bomb shelters for when this Vast Game of Chicken ends) or they are so smart they're utter morons.

Life will go on (for most), but the earthquakes that come from this inevitable collapse in wealth will shake cities to the ground in ashes and cast many of the mighty into oblivion.

…the earthquakes that come from this inevitable collapse in wealth

Don’t underestimate our passivity. Our moneyed elites are happy to take negative interest rates and watch wealth dissipate under mass immigration and dysgenic demographics. The last one standing will turn off the lights and go quietly into the night.

sadly none of this would be happening if western people were having children. but you fell for the bait. playing sex and the city in real life , partying like a teen until 42 when its too late or putting it off until you complete your 3rd toilet paper phd . or worse , cashing it all in for oxycontin. having kids is so natural and such a joy , im amazed it was so easy to deter a couple of generations from doing so.

having kids is so natural and such a joy

Agreed, but it is hard work too and requires sacrifice. Something that, as you pointed out, doesn’t mesh with one’s life when they’re only concerned about the next Tinder hook-up. Microwaves can cook your food faster, the human child still requires years and years of dedicated upbringing.

I'm not sure whether it is the Chinese Empire, Chinese Republic or the PRC that is being referred to but don't you think the Tibetans, subservient though they might have been to the monastic class, would have been happier with a government influenced by a handful of British officials than one which thrust millions of Han settlers on them?

Why don’t we ask the Aborigines in Australia what their thoughts are on the subject? They have experience with British officials and millions of settlers.

The short answer is that there wouldn't have been the millions of settlers though, when one looks round the British Empire there would have been Indian traders and perhaps Chinese labour to build railways - but they wouldn't have had the labouers' union and party running the courts.

I’m glad to learn that Pat Buchanan has become ‘polical wiser’ during the lat four years.

In February 2012, Patrick Buchanan was interviewed on Russian Television (RT). During the interview he claimed that Israel with 300 nuclear bombs is naturally greater threat to United States than Iran which has no nuclear bomb. Watch the video below.

No doubt the Chinese government would say that it is for that reason that they introduce democracy at the local level where it is likely that people will know and understand what they are dealing with....

I would say the biggest threat to this country is one in which Mr Buchanan is part of and works for, the Roman Catholic Church. You have our government chocked full of papists who owe their allegiance to no one but their "vicar of Christ", who is a king of his own country, and has his own set of "laws" that all "Catholics" hold in higher regard than the laws of this country. Kick all who owe allegiance to foreign powers out of our government, and then, and only then will America become recognizable.

Let's be a little more precise. I think what Americans are against is "illegal" immigration. The U.S. accepts over 1 million legal immigrants each year and I have not heard many complaints about this. What is a cause for concern is our "open borders policy", which supports the idea that if you can illegally enter the U.S. then you can stay. Of course, the "globalists" want to fracture the society and the corporations want cheap labor.

We don't need a wall as Trump claims. We just need to start enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants (and stop using the euphemism "undocumented") and consider adding jail terms to employers who hire illegals. With no jobs the exodus going south would be huge, we saw it happen after the 2008 financial crisis.

“We just need to start enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants (and stop using the euphemism “undocumented”) and consider adding jail terms to employers who hire illegals. ”
On point. Considering the amount of money the US have allegedly spent on “protecting the homeland,” only a conscious decision on the top in the US government could have allowed the free infiltration of the US borders by potential cheap labor.

I'm not huge on democracy being the silver bullet for all ailments:
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-God-That-Failed-Perspectives/dp/0765808684

...however, historically the Swiss confederacy predates it as a 'democratic' polity by many centuries. The nice thing is that the Swiss provided a pretty nice model - stay out everyone else's war, but defend your own.

…however, historically the Swiss confederacy predates it as a ‘democratic’ polity by many centuries. The nice thing is that the Swiss provided a pretty nice model – stay out everyone else’s war, but defend your own.

Let's be a little more precise. I think what Americans are against is "illegal" immigration. The U.S. accepts over 1 million legal immigrants each year and I have not heard many complaints about this. What is a cause for concern is our "open borders policy", which supports the idea that if you can illegally enter the U.S. then you can stay. Of course, the "globalists" want to fracture the society and the corporations want cheap labor.

We don't need a wall as Trump claims. We just need to start enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants (and stop using the euphemism "undocumented") and consider adding jail terms to employers who hire illegals. With no jobs the exodus going south would be huge, we saw it happen after the 2008 financial crisis.

If we enforced the laws against employing illegals the entire food industry would collapse. From the nurseries that produce the seeds from every farm and ranch in the country through the slaughter houses and processing plants from the mega distribution warehouses to every supermarket and restaurant in the country the food industry is the biggest employer of illegals

I know there are a few mom and pop restaurants in remote rural areas run by White families that employ only Whites but the food industry is the enemy of Whites because it doesn’t employ Whites.

Another major enemy is medicine Medicine employs both legal non White immigrant Drs nurses and t chnucians and illegals in cleaning and hospital cafeterias.

Computers, engineering and other tech jobs are pretty much no White American need apply. Go to Redmond Wa or anywhere in Silicon Valley and all you will see is non White immigrants in tech jobs.

How about this: block new illegal immigrants, deport existing ones & seriously prosecute employers who continue hiring illegals. For any short fall in the ranks of labour, enforce living wages-- I wouldn't be surprised if native Americans then took up the slack. Also, police H1B visas, & just to reduce employer demands for such visas, again, enforce minimum wages appropriate to each particular job category.
Affect profits ? Yes, in the short/medium term. But, fair wages are simply another cost of civilization....
But... like any of this has a snow ball's chance in hell....

In 2013, the top 1 percent of Americans in income paid 38 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of income-earners, half the nation, paid only 3 percent of all income taxes.

common Pat, that’s a great big whopper! Taxes are paid by the upper middle income tax payers, if they make enough to get to between 25% to 35%. You could call some of this the top 1%, like union members that get so called Cadillac health care and decent hourly, but that sounds bad, but the numbers of low pay now are huge, 90+% don’t make much anymore…!

The Top .01% to .9 don’t pay that much.

But on the other hand, it points out the the weird symbiosis between the rich coupon clipping inherency legacy welfare Queens of the .01% with the lower dole recipients, neither of which pays jack in tax!

A question logically follows: If one belongs to that third of the nation that pays no income taxes but receives copious benefits, why would you vote for a party that will cut taxes you don’t pay, but take away benefits you do receive?

Overwhelmingly, hard working and small businesses get tapped, the idle rich and slackers of all dimensions suck from the dole, and ”Spoils systems”, that is THat Is.

I'm not huge on democracy being the silver bullet for all ailments:
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-God-That-Failed-Perspectives/dp/0765808684

...however, historically the Swiss confederacy predates it as a 'democratic' polity by many centuries. The nice thing is that the Swiss provided a pretty nice model - stay out everyone else's war, but defend your own.

Peace.

tks for the head up, the swiss model.

democracy should be a fine idea, looks like fukus have fouled it up, damn these ‘democrazies’.hehehe

You might be a bit generous to Imperial Britain with the numbers in South Asia:"When the part played by the British Empire in the 19th century is regarded by the historian 50 years hence, the unnecessary deaths of millions of Indians would be its principal and most notorious monument." "Drought and monsoons afflicted much of China, southern Africa, Brazil, Egypt and India. The death tolls were staggering: around 12m Chinese and over 6m Indians in 1876-1878 alone. The chief culprit, according to Davis, was not the weather, but European empires, with Japan and the US. Their imposition of free-market economics on the colonial world was tantamount to a "cultural genocide".""Development economists have long argued that drought need not lead to famine; well-stocked inventories and effective distribution can limit the damage. In the 19th century, however, drought was treated, particularly by the English in India, as an opportunity for reasserting sovereignty."https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/jan/20/historybooks.famine

Incidentally, with contemporaneous historical events such as these, it puts into perspective the violent reaction against unfettered capitalism in the form of Communism that arose shortly after.

Also, don't know if you've come across this site by Matthew White:http://necrometrics.com/warstatx.htm

He is fairly meticulous and cites his sources and hits everyone (and I mean everyone) with a hammer - all of us should be embarrassed by how barbaric the human race can be.

Tibet (some actual people other than the monks immolating themselves ??) "marched proudly into the 21st century as part of China"!!. You mean they had a choice to be independent Tibet or part of another country? But I think you are actually just using sleight of hand in the form of flowery meaningless words to say that Tibetans - though they may resent Han domination and immigration - are better off in the 21st century than they would have been under any other possible history. And of course any fairly run opinion poll in Tibet would show indeed that 5 per cent of native Tibetans agree that they live in the best of all possible worlds, love their Han neighbours and think the killings, starvings and exiles that were incidental to building the proud marching Tibet of the 21st century were a small price to pay - by others.

Extreme anachronistic confusion is another amusing trick. Early 17th century pilgrims equals 1903 British The mind boggles.

And I bet you don't even know the one respectable source from which you can get a few words of support for calling one aspect of what some Australian Aborigines experienced "genocide". In fact it is generally a word, in that context, which operates like "racist" in most to ensure that nothing sensible or informative will be said or heard.

But he got called a 'wog' and got kicked off the train, like in the movie.

British feel bad about that, and Brits now allow immigration to UK to give the 'wogs' a second chance at admiring and emulating British ways. But the Brits act too apologetic now, and the 'wogs' now come mostly for raping teens and praying to Allah or listening to rap.

Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted.
But the Brits were pretty decent and accommodating to civilized folks. Remember that some British guy wrote Lost Horizon that idealized the Tibetans.

At the very least, the Brits respected one another. In contrast, Mao had 50 million of his countrymen killed.

Also, Brits acted ruthlessly when they needed to keep the order. Mao's Great Leap and Cultural Revolution were mad orgies of total lunacy.

In 2013, the top 1 percent of Americans in income paid 38 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of income-earners, half the nation, paid only 3 percent of all income taxes.

common Pat, that's a great big whopper! Taxes are paid by the upper middle income tax payers, if they make enough to get to between 25% to 35%. You could call some of this the top 1%, like union members that get so called Cadillac health care and decent hourly, but that sounds bad, but the numbers of low pay now are huge, 90+% don't make much anymore...!

The Top .01% to .9 don't pay that much.

But on the other hand, it points out the the weird symbiosis between the rich coupon clipping inherency legacy welfare Queens of the .01% with the lower dole recipients, neither of which pays jack in tax!

A question logically follows: If one belongs to that third of the nation that pays no income taxes but receives copious benefits, why would you vote for a party that will cut taxes you don’t pay, but take away benefits you do receive?

Overwhelmingly, hard working and small businesses get tapped, the idle rich and slackers of all dimensions suck from the dole, and ''Spoils systems'', that is THat Is.

The Top .01% to .9 don’t pay that much.

True, and what I suspect is even worse is that the top .01% are net tax consumers if one accounts for the bail-outs, subsides, special laws, etc. that only they can access.

I further suspect that corporate welfare dwarfs the various forms of payout to the underclass Welfare Queens by at leas t couple of orders of magnitude.

Read Jung Chang's EMPRESS DOWAGER book--or at least the NYRB review if you don't want to read the book itself.

Jung understands Brits did bad imperialist things but also admits how the West forced changes upon China that were necessary.

If Brits had never come to China, China would still be a land of women with bound feet.

Re:foot binding It was the nationalist government of Chang Kai shek that eradicated foot binding by strict enforcement of the law plus an excellent propaganda campaign

The Manchus who ruled China from 16 something to 1910? Didn’t practice foot binding at all.

The last empress has a bad reputation. SOP is to select a person as the enemy. For instanceAmerican communists and lefties demonized Chang Kai shek So the British and Sun Yat Sen demonized the Lady Empress.
She and her co empress had to deal with the Tai Ping rebellion a monster civil war that killed at least ten million and ravaged south China Officially it went on for about 20 years, actually it went in fron about 1830 to 1870.
Southern Chinese were as culpable in the opium war as the British. The British brought the opium to waters near the rivers, Chinese smugglers picked up and distributed it

But the worst thing is that China had 2 severely retarded emperors in a row, first her husband and then her son.

She did the best she could with what she had. Her mistakes were:
1 instigating the boxer rebellion which gave the British French etc the excuse to grab more power.
2 Selecting as successor a 2 year old instead of numerous middle aged and young adult princes

If you read only one side you are not a historian. If you had read the history of China you would know that China has gone from warlord anarchy and national government dictatorship for 4,000 years

The British Americans and Europeans caught China after 80 years of civil war retarded emperors, and the standard problems China had had for 4,000 years.

As for Hong Kong, it was leased not to the British government but to a non government British trading company by the legitimate Chinese government.

Panama has leased the Panama Canal to the Chinese government. China, not Panama now owns the canal until the lease runs out
What’s the difference between Hong Kong and the canal? Nothing

Hong Kong has only a few springs and almost no water supply. Only about 1,500 people actually lived on Hong Kong island.
Kowloon on the mainland is where British Hong King obtained its water until deep drilling and irrigation systems were set up.

The legitimate Chinese government of the 1500s leased Macao Penninsula to the Portuguese. It worked out well for both as did Hong Kong.

The Tai Ping rebellion was engineered by the Protestant missionaries (both English and Americans like Issachar Jacox Roberts) in order to weaken China and offer a pretext for Western intervention. The beginning of the Taiping rebellion coincided with 'the opening of Japan' by the gunboats of Commodore Mathew Perry. A secondary effect of the rebellion was an enormous increase in the recruitment of coolis for work in America.

"For, as John Adams reminded us, “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”"

As I have written here many times democracy does not work, Our country started out as a crude form of meritocracy and it worked for awhile, but laws were changed to allow more and more people to vote. When idiots are allowed to vote bad things happen.

It is amazing that at any stage of history non-taxpayers were given the vote.

all we have to do is take a look at what the english 'pilgrims' did to the native americans. [mother of all genocide],

the south asia indians [bengal famine, 3m dead]

the chagosians, [robbed of their homeland, exiled to slums 2000 miles away],

the australian aborigines [another genocide]

etc etc etc........................

p.s.
its amazing how people feels no shame uttering such patent nonsense, emboldened by the shield
of anonymity !

Hey Denk,

You might be a bit generous to Imperial Britain with the numbers in South Asia:
“When the part played by the British Empire in the 19th century is regarded by the historian 50 years hence, the unnecessary deaths of millions of Indians would be its principal and most notorious monument.”
“Drought and monsoons afflicted much of China, southern Africa, Brazil, Egypt and India. The death tolls were staggering: around 12m Chinese and over 6m Indians in 1876-1878 alone. The chief culprit, according to Davis, was not the weather, but European empires, with Japan and the US. Their imposition of free-market economics on the colonial world was tantamount to a “cultural genocide”.”
“Development economists have long argued that drought need not lead to famine; well-stocked inventories and effective distribution can limit the damage. In the 19th century, however, drought was treated, particularly by the English in India, as an opportunity for reasserting sovereignty.”

ah, i underestimate the death toll in the bengal famine by 75% !
no wonder indians got worked up whenever the brits reminded them about 'british contribution' to modern india. !

re the site http://necrometrics.com
when i look at the china entry, these names leap out at me,
zbig, wapo, afp, wnd, ....
no introduction needed, all right wing rags, zbig of course is the father of all neocon, mentor of obomber !

harry wu was a chinese 'dissident' whose veracity was found wanting on many occassions.
a ned beneficiary no less !

jung chang, hmmm..
its amazing how a murkkan wog's book on china could be considered the holy grail for china study!
it has been pointed out her book was hardly the shinning example of objective reporting.
jung reminds me of another murkkan wog, gordon chang.
he's famous/notorious for his prediction of 'coming collapse of china' for the past TWO DECADES !
these two are, shall we say, washington's 'useful assets' ??

how much is blatant distortion, the death toll ?
how much is outright lie, calling the famine casualties as victims 'murdered' by mao ???

Correct. That's why I don't really trust the new, improved anti-war Pat Buchanan. He's right to oppose neocon wars in the Middle Est, but he still has his own pet war: Vietnam. He's really not opposed to wasting American lives as long as the windmills are of his approval.

You might be a bit generous to Imperial Britain with the numbers in South Asia:"When the part played by the British Empire in the 19th century is regarded by the historian 50 years hence, the unnecessary deaths of millions of Indians would be its principal and most notorious monument." "Drought and monsoons afflicted much of China, southern Africa, Brazil, Egypt and India. The death tolls were staggering: around 12m Chinese and over 6m Indians in 1876-1878 alone. The chief culprit, according to Davis, was not the weather, but European empires, with Japan and the US. Their imposition of free-market economics on the colonial world was tantamount to a "cultural genocide".""Development economists have long argued that drought need not lead to famine; well-stocked inventories and effective distribution can limit the damage. In the 19th century, however, drought was treated, particularly by the English in India, as an opportunity for reasserting sovereignty."https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/jan/20/historybooks.famine

Incidentally, with contemporaneous historical events such as these, it puts into perspective the violent reaction against unfettered capitalism in the form of Communism that arose shortly after.

Also, don't know if you've come across this site by Matthew White:http://necrometrics.com/warstatx.htm

He is fairly meticulous and cites his sources and hits everyone (and I mean everyone) with a hammer - all of us should be embarrassed by how barbaric the human race can be.

Peace.

just take a peep before calling it a day.
shall take a closer look and be back baring
unforseen circumstances.
good nite [my time] !

"Democracy works when:
1. the people involved all largely agree on the basic rules anyway, and
2. the people involved agree to leave much of life outside of the purview of the political.

Neither of these conditions pertain now."

Democracy has always been messy, with people questioning those basic rules, and disagreeing over whether or not to leave life outside the political realm. You make it seem that at some point in time democracy was humming along. Your two premises lack historical reality.

"If those streaming into the West were capable of producing at home the conditions that they seek in the West, why haven’t they done so in the centuries leading up to now?"

Ask that of your ancestors why they came to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. Ask how and why "nativists" worked feverishly to state that the newcomers were other than being capable of forging a life for themselves and their families.

Ask that of your ancestors why they came to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. Ask how and why “nativists” worked feverishly to state that the newcomers were other than being capable of forging a life for themselves and their families.

Many peoples’ ancestors did not come to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. They came to essentially a a wilderness and had to hack out their own farms, towns and cities. Those colonists, settlers and pioneers are very different from immigrants who arrive into a ready-built civilization and partake freely from the social safety net.

"Many peoples’ ancestors did not come to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. They came to essentially a a wilderness and had to hack out their own farms, towns and cities."

With that wilderness that they could call there own, with the prospect of improving their lot in life, which is the very essence of possibilities and opportunities.

"Those colonists, settlers and pioneers are very different from immigrants who arrive into a ready-built civilization and partake freely from the social safety net."

In one way, yes, there is a difference. On the other hand, American civilization was evolving. It wasn't "ready built" say in the late 1800's. The second wave of industrialization was ushered in part for the need of new labor in the form of eastern and southern Europeans, which led to the expansion of cities and the advent of modern lifestyles.

"Those colonists, settlers and pioneers are very different from immigrants who arrive into a ready-built civilization and partake freely from the social safety net."

Yup. America's government of the people was libertarian/conservative and fairly individualist. Unfortunately, people with a freedom and liberty mindset (latest to develop) were an extreme minority outside of America and the party of Jefferson eventually fell to the (immigrant) progressives. Hence, the current ambidextrous government party, it's perpetual war against freedom, and a developing shithole of a country.

If you look at the moral psychology of libertarians their moral emphasis is on liberty. What right-minded crony capitalist, SJW, or generic government lover could tolerate that? Shouldn't people be sacrificed for someone else's beliefs? After all, they are the ones that know the only way or the only right way to run the world. To their benefit, that is.

Oh, the folly of wanting to be free from the thousands of years of non-stop government death and destruction.

An interesting line of thought to follow, though I think, to start with, you exaggerate considerably the quasi taxing power conferred or delegated by government to the corporate sector

Let me float an idea or two from other angles.

One is that it is the US dollar's reserve status and the fact of $US investments being the ultimate safe haven that is much more the cause of middle and working class discontents than any machinations of the 0.01 per cent. Offshoring jobs - which is surely as much Christian as capitalist unless we believe that real poverty in Asia shouldn't be relieved at the expense of Americans living less well than their parents - wouldn't occur if the dollar had never risen in exchange value above half (or whatever) where it is now.

Another is specially for anti-Fed fanatics - and could be elucidated better no doubt by Sam Shama. It is to point out that money and credit are virtually identical (although not all forms of either are identical in their impact).

In the contemporary world there is always vast latent spending power and turning spending power into GDP which is so widely used as the criterion of economuc health is the not so easy trick in a rich ageing society.

Every house that is less than fully mortgaged is a potential source of spending power. Anyone with a good salary could get a low interest loan today to support the starting of a business. And government credit is still very good as proven by interest rates.

A slight divergence perhaps, but it is sad that the intellect of American politicians hasn't trumped ideology and emotion and embraced good long term low interest debt to fix and build American infrastructure while employing Americans.

The Fed has in fact been left by politicians to make up for their inadequacies but can't get far pushing in a piece of string however glittering. I am not sure how getting the Fed out of the way and leaving money creation (again - as before 1812 and 1911 ??) to the private sector would help anything. Me, I'ld settle for payment in bills of exchange written by Google and accepted by Apple. The trouble is their credit would be so appealing that they would be tempted to flood the market with promises to pay in US dollars and off we would go on a merry go round again that would make historians talk of South Sea Bubble and Tulip Mania

you exaggerate considerably the quasi taxing power conferred or delegated by government to the corporate sector

I did not fully expand the logic of how grants of limited liability lead to the enormous disproportionate power corporations have over individuals. Within this short post, I’ll simply point out that joint stock corporations are not possible without a grant of some sort of limited liability, as no investor is going to put at risk his entire net worth by investing in an enterprise over which he has no real day to day control. Some may benefit, though I’m sure you’ll find ideological reasons to disagree with my more robust discussion at http://mosquitocloud.net/limited-liability-corporatisms-original-sin

Offshoring jobs – which is surely as much Christian as capitalist unless we believe that real poverty in Asia shouldn’t be relieved

I’ve got no problem with sharing the wealth, but that’s not what’s happening. If the rights of workers to organize were truly protected in places like El Salvador, China and Bangladesh, their wages and working conditions would be far closer to what US workers came to expect as a result of the New Deal. There is nothing Christian about death squads and assassination such as what’s been going on in Honduras since Hillary’s neo-liberal coup there. I can spare the crocodile tears, thank you.

Every house that is less than fully mortgaged is a potential source of spending power.

Oh, my. Are you not aware that re-fi’s to pull cash out of housing was one of the contributing factors to the meltdown in 2008?

Anyone with a good salary could get a low interest loan today to support the starting of a business.

First, why would you want to start a risky small business if you already have a “good salary?” Second, how is your “good salary” relevant if your plan is to quit your job so you can run the business? Finally, are you aware of the failure rate of small businesses? And if it does fail, all you’re left with is the debt, as banks are unlikely to give your little LLC, LLP or S corp a loan unless you personally co-sign.

it is sad that the intellect of American politicians hasn’t trumped ideology and emotion

You’ve certainly got that right.

I am not sure how getting the Fed out of the way and leaving money creation (again – as before 1812 and 1911 ??) to the private sector would help anything.

The Fed is private sector. It is owned by the big banks and serves their interests. It’s my personal opinion after much thought that the private creation of pseudo-money through a fraudulent private fractional reserve banking system is the root cause of 1) instability in the pseudo-money supply, 2) the boom-bust cycle, 3) the need for government bailouts or other interventions to inject real money into the economy and 4) the end result of long-term chronic inflation. The fraud was somewhat necessary as long as deflation/depression was guaranteed by a limited supply of specie based on precious metals, but became unnecessary with the advent of paper money not tied to gold or silver.

I believe a more rational approach would be to limit money creation to the government treasury’s minting/engraving of specie to fund long-term investments in such as infrastructure and education (not non-productive military production or war). Such increases in specie should be kept in conformity with resultant measured increases in capital equipment/durable goods and individual human productivity. If the government’s treasury thus increases the supply of specie as productivity rises, fractional reserve banking could be banned as fraud, requiring a 1:1 ratio of loans to capital reserves. This would stabilize the money supply. But that’s just my opinion and an argument for another day.

Not at all. What I am pointing out that for the last 100 years Abos and 1/32 Abos enjoy a pleasant welfare society.
Read some history. The English settlers and the Abos didn't interact the way Europeans and Indians fought for 250 years in America

"How many mechanical engineers or other STEM people (actual, producing, productive people, not the people with STEM degrees who work in marketing, HR or PR) are virtue-signaling leftists?
I suggest: DARN FEW."

Silicon Valley is filled with top engineers at every level.

90% of them buggers are Democrats.

Hollywood has lots of expert technical people in crew. Most are Democrats.

Most geeks and nerds in science and technology are Democrats.

They are globerals and smugots.

That’s why I call myself a recovering ex-geek. Grumpy old man “back in my day” type now I guess.

The geekverse was vaguely libertarian. We didn’t really give a damn, to be honest. Politics kept the social types busy and out of our way. We were betas or sigmas and generally happy to keep to our own interests.

Silicon Valley is what happens when billions of VC dollars come along and weaponize the sea geek personality disorders, and mix in Hollywood fetishization of geek culture. Gammas. Gammas everywhere. I sometimes think social media came about just so they could all virtue signal as much as possible.

I love meeting them, though. They look down on me for not being in the holy Valley and ask what I do. The look in their eyes is delicious as I describe my work on spacecraft communication systems intended for operation in deep space. Hardware I helped design is orbiting Saturn. I’m living the geek dream.

I ask what they do and I get some vague muttering about what sounds like yet another chat or photo sharing app. Hey, good for you, buddy. Try and keep the data mining for your corporate masters to a minimum if you can, mmmkay?

here's another view of democracy as per
dictionary for the politically incorrect,*democracy is a system whereby the psychopaths make decisions,
the peasants are reduced to doing analysis.*

karl rove
*We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.*

One of the best analytical columns that I've ever read-Pat Buchanan has put the spotlight on the potential destruction of the West. And he's done it much more succinctly than the Raspail novel
"Camp of the Saints".

Can’t believe I am reading Pat Buchanan of all people. he was already old when i was still young. Still though, way more than 50 percent of the public would be voting against their economic interests to go republican.

Ask that of your ancestors why they came to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. Ask how and why “nativists” worked feverishly to state that the newcomers were other than being capable of forging a life for themselves and their families.

Many peoples' ancestors did not come to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. They came to essentially a a wilderness and had to hack out their own farms, towns and cities. Those colonists, settlers and pioneers are very different from immigrants who arrive into a ready-built civilization and partake freely from the social safety net.

“Many peoples’ ancestors did not come to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. They came to essentially a a wilderness and had to hack out their own farms, towns and cities.”

With that wilderness that they could call there own, with the prospect of improving their lot in life, which is the very essence of possibilities and opportunities.

“Those colonists, settlers and pioneers are very different from immigrants who arrive into a ready-built civilization and partake freely from the social safety net.”

In one way, yes, there is a difference. On the other hand, American civilization was evolving. It wasn’t “ready built” say in the late 1800′s. The second wave of industrialization was ushered in part for the need of new labor in the form of eastern and southern Europeans, which led to the expansion of cities and the advent of modern lifestyles.

Obviously the nation is always changing, whether one thinks it's for the better or worse. But by the late 1800's we had created major cities like NYC, built a trans-continental railroad and were definitely among the world's largest economies. Compared to what the Puritans found, or the pioneers heading out West on the wagon trains, the USA in the late 1800's was 'ready built'.

With that wilderness that they could call there own, with the prospect of improving their lot in life, which is the very essence of possibilities and opportunities.

But people today are not coming for the wilderness or land. If they were, they could easily head to Mexico, or remain in Mexico, whatever the case might be.

The reason people are coming here is because of the opportunity that has been created and passed down by those who saw wilderness and planted the seeds of what we have today.

Further, much of the wilderness our forefathers tackled was of a much harsher variety than that found in many other areas of the New World. On paper they should have had a much harder time, yet they established something that has grown into the most opportunity-rich nation on earth. While other New World nations languish and see their citizens give up and head North.

And using one example, is there any place comparable to the Boston and New England area when it comes to the number and quality of institutions of higher education? A little over 400 years ago the place was a wilderness. Within a couple hundred years they had established several prominent schools. I can't think of anywhere else so many top notch schools are so closely clustered. Any one have an example?

But the point is today's immigrants can come to Boston and have access to the finest educational institutions in the world, courtesy in large part of those who hacked out a civilization from the wilderness four centuries ago.

I would say the biggest threat to this country is one in which Mr Buchanan is part of and works for, the Roman Catholic Church. You have our government chocked full of papists who owe their allegiance to no one but their "vicar of Christ", who is a king of his own country, and has his own set of "laws" that all "Catholics" hold in higher regard than the laws of this country. Kick all who owe allegiance to foreign powers out of our government, and then, and only then will America become recognizable.

Do you use bleach on your Klan regalia, or do you find detergent alone suffices?

So you are suggesting that they were all in on being ruled (and hunted) by British officials and settlers?

Not at all. What I am pointing out that for the last 100 years Abos and 1/32 Abos enjoy a pleasant welfare society.
Read some history. The English settlers and the Abos didn’t interact the way Europeans and Indians fought for 250 years in America

Well, I do read a bit of history, but will concede the point that my reading does not include the history of Australia. My main bone was your condescension and animosity towards welfare recipients. I equated the Aborigine welfare class with our American welfare class and pushed back against you on that basis. The welfare class is not the enemy. The enemy is the class that entraps people in welfare and prevents their escape.

You do know, of course, that the leftist (liberals) largely are the chattering class, right?

How many mechanical engineers or other STEM people (actual, producing, productive people, not the people with STEM degrees who work in marketing, HR or PR) are virtue-signaling leftists?

I suggest: DARN FEW.

The people who MAKE real stuff and DO real work know where prosperity comes from. They don't generally feel obligated to give away what they produce to people who don't or can't produce it.

All this "bleeding heart" pathological altruism is far more likely to be found among those who think pushing paper in a bureaucracy is "work."

I’m not sure I agree with the libs/(conservative) bit, but I share your opinion of disciplines that add little value to the human condition, let alone to future prospects. I suppose some satisfaction can be taken in looking at something built few in those those fields can hope to enjoy. Most of them leave no trace of earthly accomplishment.

Forty years ago mechanical engineers had the headache of dealing with subjective individual comfort standards achieved by inexact methods. Hopefully it’s better now. Structural engineers specializing in steel had it a little better (a more exact medium), but they also dealt with construction, which can easily subvert the best design if one isn’t frequently onsite.

I’ve always liked the admonition ‘be happy in your work.’ So many (especially those in fields that deal in intangibles) aren’t. That is their special punishment.

I share your opinion of disciplines that add little value to the human condition, let alone to future prospects. I suppose some satisfaction can be taken in looking at something built few in those those fields can hope to enjoy. Most of them leave no trace of earthly accomplishment.

Ask that of your ancestors why they came to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. Ask how and why “nativists” worked feverishly to state that the newcomers were other than being capable of forging a life for themselves and their families.

Many peoples' ancestors did not come to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. They came to essentially a a wilderness and had to hack out their own farms, towns and cities. Those colonists, settlers and pioneers are very different from immigrants who arrive into a ready-built civilization and partake freely from the social safety net.

“Those colonists, settlers and pioneers are very different from immigrants who arrive into a ready-built civilization and partake freely from the social safety net.”

Yup. America’s government of the people was libertarian/conservative and fairly individualist. Unfortunately, people with a freedom and liberty mindset (latest to develop) were an extreme minority outside of America and the party of Jefferson eventually fell to the (immigrant) progressives. Hence, the current ambidextrous government party, it’s perpetual war against freedom, and a developing shithole of a country.

If you look at the moral psychology of libertarians their moral emphasis is on liberty. What right-minded crony capitalist, SJW, or generic government lover could tolerate that? Shouldn’t people be sacrificed for someone else’s beliefs? After all, they are the ones that know the only way or the only right way to run the world. To their benefit, that is.

Oh, the folly of wanting to be free from the thousands of years of non-stop government death and destruction.

I’m not sure I agree with the libs/(conservative) bit, but I share your opinion of disciplines that add little value to the human condition, let alone to future prospects. I suppose some satisfaction can be taken in looking at something built few in those those fields can hope to enjoy. Most of them leave no trace of earthly accomplishment.

Forty years ago mechanical engineers had the headache of dealing with subjective individual comfort standards achieved by inexact methods. Hopefully it’s better now. Structural engineers specializing in steel had it a little better (a more exact medium), but they also dealt with construction, which can easily subvert the best design if one isn’t frequently onsite.

I’ve always liked the admonition ‘be happy in your work.’ So many (especially those in fields that deal in intangibles) aren’t. That is their special punishment.

I share your opinion of disciplines that add little value to the human condition, let alone to future prospects. I suppose some satisfaction can be taken in looking at something built few in those those fields can hope to enjoy. Most of them leave no trace of earthly accomplishment.

It also depends on a range of circumstances that amount to whether one is on the rise or decline [these terms are meant only as catch-alls] and whether one uses all the tools of power well.

France intervened in the 30 years war in a timely way and for secular reasons, on the protestant side, to keep the war going and undermine its Habsburg Spanish and Austrian enemies. France was already a great power. by using the opportunity the German war presented, France undermined its enemies and enhanced its own power greatly.

France frittered away a good deal of that in Louis XIV's endless series of wars. On the other hand, it was still the dominant military, economic and demographic power of Europe in 1715, had actually achieved the goal of his last war [put his grandson on the Spanish throne while keeping most of the Spanish empire intact] and make Spain at minimum an ally and often a puppet. Although he had to make concessions to Austria, and did not break Austria, he had removed the Habsburg axis encircling France and moved France to a position of power-parity with Austria in the German world. France didn't really get its ass handed to it strategically or start to exceed its resources until the 7 years war. That's nearly a century of great power war before France started its downward slide.

Britain could be said to be one of the great powers by the time of the 1707 Union, and was already fighting the French at sea on equal terms and on land with success as the equal partner to the Austrians [fewer ground troops, but monetary subsidy]. Britain continued managing the next century of great power war not only able to do so within its resources, but enhancing its power. Even the loss of America did not provide a strategic disadvantage until a century afterward. Certainly it did not impede Britain's capacity to engage in and subsidize half of Europe in 20 years of war against France 1793-1815 [these being the wars that finally broke France's capacity to stay on top, but enhanced Britain's.]

France was broken when its archaic financial system proved unequal to its victory in the American war, but the revolution and serious administrative reform in short order produced a France briefly able to wildly exceed Louis XIV's dreams, taking on all of Europe by land and, briefly, by sea, and within a hair's breadth of finding some diplomatic and ideological suite that could cement it on top of European civilization. Failing that, sure, it had exceeded its carrying capacity by the end and never quite recovered. It did stay in the ranks of great powers for over a century more, though, if it isn't still.

Britain failed when its hitherto far superior financial system operating in a more mature world economy proved unequal to a more costly kind of war than ever before faced, at the same time as it had for the first time to put a continental-scale army in the field for the duration and take [along with the others] unprecedented losses. Even then Britain's fall wasn't guaranteed to take it out of the first rank [it was already behind the US at the top by 1914] if there hadn't been another even bigger and more costly war so soon.

Even poor Spain, a country so poor that it should never have been a great power at all, and whose almost magic possession of an empire was its ultimate undoing, nevertheless capitalized on that empire's wealth long enough to be the leading power for a century, and it still was so well into the 30 years war after having fought, with indifferent success, many previous major wars. And even its decline took it over a century to fall out of the ranks of great powers.

Those are all pretty good runs by any standards, certainly compared to the US to date.

And even looking at the US, it has fought at least 1.3 'great wars' successfully and decisively [that's citing its participation in the world wars] and ended up with its power enhanced after both, the latter decisively so. It hasn't fought such a war since. If it is laid low by its failure in recent expeditionary wars, that would be the equivalent of Britain being knocked off its perch by Crimea, South Africa, the Indian Mutiny, or indeed the endless wars of the Indian frontier.

Enjoyed your post.

“reform in short order produced a France briefly able to wildly exceed Louis XIV’s dreams, taking on all of Europe by land and, briefly, by sea, and within a hair’s breadth of finding some diplomatic and ideological suite that could cement it on top of European civilization.”

Napoléon’s glory came at the cost of ±1,700,000 men (more than those lost in WW1). France’s population never recovered. Was it worth it?

I share your opinion of disciplines that add little value to the human condition, let alone to future prospects. I suppose some satisfaction can be taken in looking at something built few in those those fields can hope to enjoy. Most of them leave no trace of earthly accomplishment.

I don’t think STEM is the apex of value. STEM is a means to an end, and the end is always the most/the only important thing. I’d be bored to death reading technical journals for fun. But I’m also wary of a “service economy” that traps people in largely repetitive jobs affording little satisfaction and less legacy.

One can exist on meat without spice; but one can’t very well exist on spice alone. Neither prospect is attractive (apologies to vegans). We’re better off with both.

"Many peoples’ ancestors did not come to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. They came to essentially a a wilderness and had to hack out their own farms, towns and cities."

With that wilderness that they could call there own, with the prospect of improving their lot in life, which is the very essence of possibilities and opportunities.

"Those colonists, settlers and pioneers are very different from immigrants who arrive into a ready-built civilization and partake freely from the social safety net."

In one way, yes, there is a difference. On the other hand, American civilization was evolving. It wasn't "ready built" say in the late 1800's. The second wave of industrialization was ushered in part for the need of new labor in the form of eastern and southern Europeans, which led to the expansion of cities and the advent of modern lifestyles.

It wasn’t “ready built” say in the late 1800′s.

Obviously the nation is always changing, whether one thinks it’s for the better or worse. But by the late 1800′s we had created major cities like NYC, built a trans-continental railroad and were definitely among the world’s largest economies. Compared to what the Puritans found, or the pioneers heading out West on the wagon trains, the USA in the late 1800′s was ‘ready built’.

"Compared to what the Puritans found, or the pioneers heading out West on the wagon trains, the USA in the late 1800′s was ‘ready built’."

Ready built for the next round of progress. Ready built by immigrants and former slaves and Native Americans.

"The reason people are coming here is because of the opportunity that has been created and passed down by those who saw wilderness and planted the seeds of what we have today."

Which is exactly what defines America.

"But the point is today’s immigrants can come to Boston and have access to the finest educational institutions in the world, courtesy in large part of those who hacked out a civilization from the wilderness four centuries ago."

Initially constructed by yesterday's immigrants, with meaningful additions by generations thereafter. Again, that is what defines America.

"Many peoples’ ancestors did not come to a new land teeming with possibilities and opportunities. They came to essentially a a wilderness and had to hack out their own farms, towns and cities."

With that wilderness that they could call there own, with the prospect of improving their lot in life, which is the very essence of possibilities and opportunities.

"Those colonists, settlers and pioneers are very different from immigrants who arrive into a ready-built civilization and partake freely from the social safety net."

In one way, yes, there is a difference. On the other hand, American civilization was evolving. It wasn't "ready built" say in the late 1800's. The second wave of industrialization was ushered in part for the need of new labor in the form of eastern and southern Europeans, which led to the expansion of cities and the advent of modern lifestyles.

With that wilderness that they could call there own, with the prospect of improving their lot in life, which is the very essence of possibilities and opportunities.

But people today are not coming for the wilderness or land. If they were, they could easily head to Mexico, or remain in Mexico, whatever the case might be.

The reason people are coming here is because of the opportunity that has been created and passed down by those who saw wilderness and planted the seeds of what we have today.

Further, much of the wilderness our forefathers tackled was of a much harsher variety than that found in many other areas of the New World. On paper they should have had a much harder time, yet they established something that has grown into the most opportunity-rich nation on earth. While other New World nations languish and see their citizens give up and head North.

And using one example, is there any place comparable to the Boston and New England area when it comes to the number and quality of institutions of higher education? A little over 400 years ago the place was a wilderness. Within a couple hundred years they had established several prominent schools. I can’t think of anywhere else so many top notch schools are so closely clustered. Any one have an example?

But the point is today’s immigrants can come to Boston and have access to the finest educational institutions in the world, courtesy in large part of those who hacked out a civilization from the wilderness four centuries ago.

Nicely put especially 'much of the wilderness our forefathers tackled was of a much harsher variety than that found in many other areas of the New World. On paper they should have had a much harder time'. I expect most people never give the early years of colonial America a thought but the truth is so remarkable one has to wonder at the determination of the people back then.

One of my favorite stories is the French relation that the first horses brought to Canada (1665) were thought by natives to be “tractable moose.” In fact an understandable assumption. But it could lead to disaster if one actually tried to domesticate the latter species.

Well, I do read a bit of history, but will concede the point that my reading does not include the history of Australia. My main bone was your condescension and animosity towards welfare recipients. I equated the Aborigine welfare class with our American welfare class and pushed back against you on that basis. The welfare class is not the enemy. The enemy is the class that entraps people in welfare and prevents their escape.

I have no animosity towards welfare recipients. I just pointed out that the Abos get excellent welfare benefits.
It’s better than eating raw snakes and fighting over water supplies.

It’s a better life than going into debt every month to maintain the car that one drives 15 hours a week to get to a job that requires 30 hours a week of unpaid overtime.

You seem to be buying into and adding to the idea that only STEM has value.

Man does not live by bread alone. Although, he won't live long without it and it is nice to have an adequate supply, etc.

Ah, thank you. I was about to randomly respond.

I don’t think STEM is the apex of value. STEM is a means to an end, and the end is always the most/the only important thing. I’d be bored to death reading technical journals for fun. But I’m also wary of a “service economy” that traps people in largely repetitive jobs affording little satisfaction and less legacy.

One can exist on meat without spice; but one can’t very well exist on spice alone. Neither prospect is attractive (apologies to vegans). We’re better off with both.

Some really smart person should write the definitive book about our relationships to different animals.

Of course dogs are by themselves. I suspect that we wouldn’t be who we are without dogs.

How many different cultures restricted riding horses to the upper classes?

One of my favorite stories is the French relation that the first horses brought to Canada (1665) were thought by natives to be “tractable moose.” In fact an understandable assumption. But it could lead to disaster if one actually tried to domesticate the latter species.

To point out that what governments like America's do instead of reneging on debt is to allow inflation to do the job might add value - and possibly some expert comment on hypothetical alternatives if any.

I am not of the same mind as Nosey on the Fed.

I see the federal reserve as a tool to help stabilize our economy and try to keep it on an even keel by regulating the liquidity within the system.

When the housing bubble burst and the subprime fiasco hit hard, our entire economy could have seized up completely.

It almost did.

The massive losses in home values by the housing correction led to a dramatic shut down in consumer spending.

nobody wants to buy goods or services if they feel their home is worth a third of what it was yesterday.

This sentiment had a cascading effect throughout the entire economy ….all businesses got hurt, small and large alike ….when the malls are vacant, the restaurants are empty, and nobody can sell a car because nobody wants to buy one….it is profoundly disruptive to everyone.

The feds actions, lowering interest rates to zero ,was an attempt to encourage consumer spending by making it almost painful to keep your money in the bank.

If your savings account or your six month CD yields half a percent in interest(at best), maybe going out and buying that new toaster or refrigerator is not such a bad idea.

These actions stimulated spending and reignited the engine of the economy.

Would you agree as well that the Fed was left to do its best (a very ingenious best as it turned out) by fanatically anti debt and anti (what they thought of as a kind of lefty big spending) Keynesianism Congress and weak Administration because the ways to get spending power into the hands of those who would quickly spend that were neglected included1. Using much of the $600 billion fo TARP to give relief to mortgagees instead of just bailing out the big end of town (not that I could give you much detail about TARP off the top of my head);2. Engaging in needed infrastructure expenditure throughout the US on a large scale.

Obviously there was a classic Irving Fisher debt deflation problem so, to get consumer expenditure going again giving debtors relief by lowering their interest obligations helped. I am not sure whether the US preference for fixed rate loans wan't a barrier here to speedy relief but the direction would have been right.

You suggest that people would spend rather than save when their savings were going to earn very little interest but I question the importance and effectiveness of that mechanism. Who would/did it apply to and for what amounts? Some would decide that they had better husband their savings as earning interest safely had become difficult. Some would see it as an omen of deflation and reckon that lower prices were to come.

To some extent corporate America was also overborrowed and would initially reduce debt. But making it possible for businesses to borrow cheaply to finance business expansion where they could see possibilities was certainly in accordance with good rational economics. But, as I said, "pushing on a piece of string" and proven to be inadequate (though all the Fed could do) by the use of so much cheap money for share buybacks.

Consider what might have been achieved if .... well I was about to use my imagination on great 2009 infrastructure projects but maybe Detroit Garden City Urban Renewal and East of East River Bringing the Roads into the First World Project would only remind people of what bureaucratic fat cats do with ither people's money.

Re:foot binding It was the nationalist government of Chang Kai shek that eradicated foot binding by strict enforcement of the law plus an excellent propaganda campaign

The Manchus who ruled China from 16 something to 1910? Didn't practice foot binding at all.

The last empress has a bad reputation. SOP is to select a person as the enemy. For instanceAmerican communists and lefties demonized Chang Kai shek So the British and Sun Yat Sen demonized the Lady Empress.
She and her co empress had to deal with the Tai Ping rebellion a monster civil war that killed at least ten million and ravaged south China Officially it went on for about 20 years, actually it went in fron about 1830 to 1870.
Southern Chinese were as culpable in the opium war as the British. The British brought the opium to waters near the rivers, Chinese smugglers picked up and distributed it

But the worst thing is that China had 2 severely retarded emperors in a row, first her husband and then her son.

She did the best she could with what she had. Her mistakes were:
1 instigating the boxer rebellion which gave the British French etc the excuse to grab more power.
2 Selecting as successor a 2 year old instead of numerous middle aged and young adult princes

If you read only one side you are not a historian. If you had read the history of China you would know that China has gone from warlord anarchy and national government dictatorship for 4,000 years

The British Americans and Europeans caught China after 80 years of civil war retarded emperors, and the standard problems China had had for 4,000 years.

As for Hong Kong, it was leased not to the British government but to a non government British trading company by the legitimate Chinese government.

Panama has leased the Panama Canal to the Chinese government. China, not Panama now owns the canal until the lease runs out
What's the difference between Hong Kong and the canal? Nothing

Hong Kong has only a few springs and almost no water supply. Only about 1,500 people actually lived on Hong Kong island.
Kowloon on the mainland is where British Hong King obtained its water until deep drilling and irrigation systems were set up.

The legitimate Chinese government of the 1500s leased Macao Penninsula to the Portuguese. It worked out well for both as did Hong Kong.

The Tai Ping rebellion was engineered by the Protestant missionaries (both English and Americans like Issachar Jacox Roberts) in order to weaken China and offer a pretext for Western intervention. The beginning of the Taiping rebellion coincided with ‘the opening of Japan’ by the gunboats of Commodore Mathew Perry. A secondary effect of the rebellion was an enormous increase in the recruitment of coolis for work in America.

It sounds to me as though you once got a comic book snapshot of the Taiping Rebellion from some lefty publication and haven't taken an interest since. Still that put you ahead of me as I couldn't even have linked "Chinese" Gordon's nickname to the Taiping Rebellion, or given its dates. Now I have to thank you for most of an hour's fascinating reading.What extraordinary parallels there are between today's Islamic State and the Taiping "kingdom [s]". Brutal slaughter on a vast scale though also by the Qing governmnent forces, destruction of Buddhist libraries, strict separation of men and women though the leaders had concubines, claims to base everything on a bastard version of Abrahamic religion, in this case Christianity.

The precedent doesn't suggest that ISIL/ISIS/IS will be destroyed quickly. We lack premodern ruthlessness.

I read an editorial in the NY Times the other day….and the “attitude” of the Times,in regards to initiating criminal, belligerent wars of aggression certainly must rank among the more serious existential threats to our country, if not the world.

The “Times” referred to the Iraq war and the extermination of anywhere from 200 thousand to over two million Iraqi’s, who never did ANYTHING to us, as just a ( little) “mistake”….like a little teensy weensy boo-boo, or something…….Secondly, they referred to their wholly mendacious arguments for going to war as….and I quote…..”flimsy”…..like the selling to every American the absolute certainty it was Saddams anthrax spores deposited in our capitol and our news rooms….when it wasn’t….is just “flimsy”.

Its not just “flimsy”, Mr. Buchanan, ……..its Fraud.

I would have to say the greatest singular existential threat to our nation, bar none, is the ability of those in power to defraud us (as a nation) into committing supremely heinous crimes , oh so easily, whenever they choose to, with no consequences…..and never having to pay a price.

How can those who defraud us, actually represent us ?

And once they commit that fraud, are they really part of the United States, at all ?

I see the federal reserve as a tool to help stabilize our economy and try to keep it on an even keel by regulating the liquidity within the system.

When the housing bubble burst and the subprime fiasco hit hard, our entire economy could have seized up completely.

It almost did.

The massive losses in home values by the housing correction led to a dramatic shut down in consumer spending.

nobody wants to buy goods or services if they feel their home is worth a third of what it was yesterday.

This sentiment had a cascading effect throughout the entire economy ....all businesses got hurt, small and large alike ....when the malls are vacant, the restaurants are empty, and nobody can sell a car because nobody wants to buy one....it is profoundly disruptive to everyone.

The feds actions, lowering interest rates to zero ,was an attempt to encourage consumer spending by making it almost painful to keep your money in the bank.

If your savings account or your six month CD yields half a percent in interest(at best), maybe going out and buying that new toaster or refrigerator is not such a bad idea.

These actions stimulated spending and reignited the engine of the economy.

Thanks for the coherent summary.

Would you agree as well that the Fed was left to do its best (a very ingenious best as it turned out) by fanatically anti debt and anti (what they thought of as a kind of lefty big spending) Keynesianism Congress and weak Administration because the ways to get spending power into the hands of those who would quickly spend that were neglected included
1. Using much of the $600 billion fo TARP to give relief to mortgagees instead of just bailing out the big end of town (not that I could give you much detail about TARP off the top of my head);
2. Engaging in needed infrastructure expenditure throughout the US on a large scale.

Obviously there was a classic Irving Fisher debt deflation problem so, to get consumer expenditure going again giving debtors relief by lowering their interest obligations helped. I am not sure whether the US preference for fixed rate loans wan’t a barrier here to speedy relief but the direction would have been right.

You suggest that people would spend rather than save when their savings were going to earn very little interest but I question the importance and effectiveness of that mechanism. Who would/did it apply to and for what amounts? Some would decide that they had better husband their savings as earning interest safely had become difficult. Some would see it as an omen of deflation and reckon that lower prices were to come.

To some extent corporate America was also overborrowed and would initially reduce debt. But making it possible for businesses to borrow cheaply to finance business expansion where they could see possibilities was certainly in accordance with good rational economics. But, as I said, “pushing on a piece of string” and proven to be inadequate (though all the Fed could do) by the use of so much cheap money for share buybacks.

Consider what might have been achieved if …. well I was about to use my imagination on great 2009 infrastructure projects but maybe Detroit Garden City Urban Renewal and East of East River Bringing the Roads into the First World Project would only remind people of what bureaucratic fat cats do with ither people’s money.

Globerals made imperialism, militarism, and war-mongering ‘cool’ and ‘hip’.

How? They SJW-ed the US military. By allowing Sikh-Americans to wear turbans, by allowing women into combat, by allowing homos to boof and suck dick in military bases, and by letting trannies to strut around in high heels, the US military has taken on ‘progressive’ sheen.

So, it doesn’t matter if Obama and Hillary are War Criminals who destroyed Libya and Syria. It doesn’t matter if US military is recklessly needling and provoking Russia in the Baltics and Poland.

US military now flies the homo ‘rainbow’ flag as its banner. So, it made imperialism ‘hip’ and ‘cool’.

It is incredible that the very people who marched in the streets by the 100,000s in denunciation of Bush II’s Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are now cheering for Hillary the War Criminal and the 4 star clown at the Democratic Convention who called for Diversity-Imperialism. You see, US is an ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation because US military might has Muslim soldiers, homos, trannies, and women. Yippie yay. That means whatever the US War Machine does is ‘progressive’ since Army of Diversity does it. So, US militarism is Inclusion-Invasion. A War Machine that is ‘inclusive’ has the right to be invasive. American supremacism(“we are soooo exceptional”) and chauvinism(“we are soooo indispensable”) are wonderful to Libs and Progs as long as US imperialism is seen as ‘progressive’.

I suppose it’s like the French Revolution’s Wars too. Initially, they were defensive and justified. But under Napoleon, they became imperialistic and expansive and jingois-istic.
French Revolution turned into French Empire Building. But because French imperialism became associated with ‘spreading enlightenment’, the French radicals and French masses went along with Napoleon’s mania for expansion and domination.
The very people who once abhorred war as abominable ventures of vain kings and princes were exulting in it as the way to spread Reason.

Even people who should hate and oppose wars love them when wars become associated with their symbols of their cause.

The genius of Bill Clinton was taking GOP ideas on ‘free trade’ and ‘law and order’ and turning them into ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal issues’ by fusing Big Money with Homomania and hipster urban gentrification.

The trick of Obama/Hillary is taking GOP themes of patriotism and militarism(often disdained by Liberals) and making them palatable to the Progs by re-inventing the military into a SJW outfit. With all those trannies, homos, women in combat, and etc., how can Liberals oppose militarism and the War State?
It’s Homo Jima Time.

The Tai Ping rebellion was engineered by the Protestant missionaries (both English and Americans like Issachar Jacox Roberts) in order to weaken China and offer a pretext for Western intervention. The beginning of the Taiping rebellion coincided with 'the opening of Japan' by the gunboats of Commodore Mathew Perry. A secondary effect of the rebellion was an enormous increase in the recruitment of coolis for work in America.

It sounds to me as though you once got a comic book snapshot of the Taiping Rebellion from some lefty publication and haven’t taken an interest since. Still that put you ahead of me as I couldn’t even have linked “Chinese” Gordon’s nickname to the Taiping Rebellion, or given its dates. Now I have to thank you for most of an hour’s fascinating reading.
What extraordinary parallels there are between today’s Islamic State and the Taiping “kingdom [s]“. Brutal slaughter on a vast scale though also by the Qing governmnent forces, destruction of Buddhist libraries, strict separation of men and women though the leaders had concubines, claims to base everything on a bastard version of Abrahamic religion, in this case Christianity.

The precedent doesn’t suggest that ISIL/ISIS/IS will be destroyed quickly. We lack premodern ruthlessness.

You won't be surprised that Sun Yat Sen was baptized in Hong Kong by an American missionary of the Congregational Church of the United States and that Chiang Kai Shek (who was the brother in law of Sun) was baptized in the Methodist (American) church. He might have believed that Christianity reinforced Confucian moral teachings. But notice that the Taipin ideology was to completely replace Confucianism, the backbone of the Chinese society. Was not that the slogan of Mao's 'cultural revolution'?

Obviously the nation is always changing, whether one thinks it's for the better or worse. But by the late 1800's we had created major cities like NYC, built a trans-continental railroad and were definitely among the world's largest economies. Compared to what the Puritans found, or the pioneers heading out West on the wagon trains, the USA in the late 1800's was 'ready built'.

“Compared to what the Puritans found, or the pioneers heading out West on the wagon trains, the USA in the late 1800′s was ‘ready built’.”

Ready built for the next round of progress. Ready built by immigrants and former slaves and Native Americans.

“The reason people are coming here is because of the opportunity that has been created and passed down by those who saw wilderness and planted the seeds of what we have today.”

Which is exactly what defines America.

“But the point is today’s immigrants can come to Boston and have access to the finest educational institutions in the world, courtesy in large part of those who hacked out a civilization from the wilderness four centuries ago.”

Initially constructed by yesterday’s immigrants, with meaningful additions by generations thereafter. Again, that is what defines America.

It also depends on a range of circumstances that amount to whether one is on the rise or decline [these terms are meant only as catch-alls] and whether one uses all the tools of power well.

France intervened in the 30 years war in a timely way and for secular reasons, on the protestant side, to keep the war going and undermine its Habsburg Spanish and Austrian enemies. France was already a great power. by using the opportunity the German war presented, France undermined its enemies and enhanced its own power greatly.

France frittered away a good deal of that in Louis XIV's endless series of wars. On the other hand, it was still the dominant military, economic and demographic power of Europe in 1715, had actually achieved the goal of his last war [put his grandson on the Spanish throne while keeping most of the Spanish empire intact] and make Spain at minimum an ally and often a puppet. Although he had to make concessions to Austria, and did not break Austria, he had removed the Habsburg axis encircling France and moved France to a position of power-parity with Austria in the German world. France didn't really get its ass handed to it strategically or start to exceed its resources until the 7 years war. That's nearly a century of great power war before France started its downward slide.

Britain could be said to be one of the great powers by the time of the 1707 Union, and was already fighting the French at sea on equal terms and on land with success as the equal partner to the Austrians [fewer ground troops, but monetary subsidy]. Britain continued managing the next century of great power war not only able to do so within its resources, but enhancing its power. Even the loss of America did not provide a strategic disadvantage until a century afterward. Certainly it did not impede Britain's capacity to engage in and subsidize half of Europe in 20 years of war against France 1793-1815 [these being the wars that finally broke France's capacity to stay on top, but enhanced Britain's.]

France was broken when its archaic financial system proved unequal to its victory in the American war, but the revolution and serious administrative reform in short order produced a France briefly able to wildly exceed Louis XIV's dreams, taking on all of Europe by land and, briefly, by sea, and within a hair's breadth of finding some diplomatic and ideological suite that could cement it on top of European civilization. Failing that, sure, it had exceeded its carrying capacity by the end and never quite recovered. It did stay in the ranks of great powers for over a century more, though, if it isn't still.

Britain failed when its hitherto far superior financial system operating in a more mature world economy proved unequal to a more costly kind of war than ever before faced, at the same time as it had for the first time to put a continental-scale army in the field for the duration and take [along with the others] unprecedented losses. Even then Britain's fall wasn't guaranteed to take it out of the first rank [it was already behind the US at the top by 1914] if there hadn't been another even bigger and more costly war so soon.

Even poor Spain, a country so poor that it should never have been a great power at all, and whose almost magic possession of an empire was its ultimate undoing, nevertheless capitalized on that empire's wealth long enough to be the leading power for a century, and it still was so well into the 30 years war after having fought, with indifferent success, many previous major wars. And even its decline took it over a century to fall out of the ranks of great powers.

Those are all pretty good runs by any standards, certainly compared to the US to date.

And even looking at the US, it has fought at least 1.3 'great wars' successfully and decisively [that's citing its participation in the world wars] and ended up with its power enhanced after both, the latter decisively so. It hasn't fought such a war since. If it is laid low by its failure in recent expeditionary wars, that would be the equivalent of Britain being knocked off its perch by Crimea, South Africa, the Indian Mutiny, or indeed the endless wars of the Indian frontier.

endless wars of the Indian frontier.
Yes, there were three Anglo-Afghan Wars. And the tally was 3-0 for the Afghans.

You do know, of course, that the leftist (liberals) largely are the chattering class, right?

How many mechanical engineers or other STEM people (actual, producing, productive people, not the people with STEM degrees who work in marketing, HR or PR) are virtue-signaling leftists?

I suggest: DARN FEW.

The people who MAKE real stuff and DO real work know where prosperity comes from. They don't generally feel obligated to give away what they produce to people who don't or can't produce it.

All this "bleeding heart" pathological altruism is far more likely to be found among those who think pushing paper in a bureaucracy is "work."

“All this “bleeding heart” pathological altruism….”
Sorry, what ?
What altruism, of any kind ?
I don’t believe we should be altruistic to the third world, but a little justice might be nice. Why ? Let’s forget justice because it’s “right” (because no doubt that will be considered more bleeding heart pathological leftism). No let’s have a bit of justice because it PROFITS EVERBODY.
So, what do I mean?
Let’s stop supporting various third world tyrants who use their countries as personal bank accounts. Who see their people’s as resources to be exploited by any home or western bastard after a quick buck (ie helps prevent social upheaval & regional instability)
Let’s stop the IMF and their trailing miasma of “economic hit men” from destroying third world economies for the benefit of western banks etc.
Let’s stop enabling right wing “regime change” : ie Brazil, Ukraine, Hondourus etc, etc, etc.
Let’s stop bombing etc the crap out of third world countries (ie helps stop the CAUSES of that “diversity” everyone dislikes: poverty/war = global flows of people = lots of darkish persons in the US)
Let’s do some trade deals that advantage all players.
And so on.
See nothing altruistic, let alone bleeding heart. In the long term, Justice is just good business.

It sounds to me as though you once got a comic book snapshot of the Taiping Rebellion from some lefty publication and haven't taken an interest since. Still that put you ahead of me as I couldn't even have linked "Chinese" Gordon's nickname to the Taiping Rebellion, or given its dates. Now I have to thank you for most of an hour's fascinating reading.What extraordinary parallels there are between today's Islamic State and the Taiping "kingdom [s]". Brutal slaughter on a vast scale though also by the Qing governmnent forces, destruction of Buddhist libraries, strict separation of men and women though the leaders had concubines, claims to base everything on a bastard version of Abrahamic religion, in this case Christianity.

The precedent doesn't suggest that ISIL/ISIS/IS will be destroyed quickly. We lack premodern ruthlessness.

You won’t be surprised that Sun Yat Sen was baptized in Hong Kong by an American missionary of the Congregational Church of the United States and that Chiang Kai Shek (who was the brother in law of Sun) was baptized in the Methodist (American) church. He might have believed that Christianity reinforced Confucian moral teachings.
But notice that the Taipin ideology was to completely replace Confucianism, the backbone of the Chinese society. Was not that the slogan of Mao’s ‘cultural revolution’?

The AH Empire was bigger in land size and had 4 times the population of Prussia.
But Prussia prevailed. Why? AH Empire’s size and diversity were its undoing. Prussia was smaller in population, but it was all German, and as such, tightly bound together.
In contrast, AH Empire’s size in people and land were huge, but there was little unity. German-Austrians made up only 1/4 of its population. The ruling German-Austrians had difficult time keeping all the subject peoples together. It tried to convince the subject peoples that they were not subjects, but there was a lot of resentment among the non-Austrians.

So, even though by the numbers, the AH empire seemed far more formidable, the Prussians won the war because they were homogeneous and united and were interested mainly in uniting Germans and leaving non-Germans out.

From this, white folks can learn a lesson. As non-white numbers swell, it is both a blessing and a curse to the white Liberals. They will become like the Austrian elites trying to hold together a vast diverse population of subject peoples. Blacks, Hispanics, and many immigrant groups are essentially subject peoples of Jewish and White Liberal Globalist elites. As time passes, the Liberal coalition will become majority non-white if it aint already. It will be Jewish/white ruling class over non-whites who remain mired in lower income.

In contrast, white conservatives can become like Prussia. They may be smaller in number than the Diversity Empire, but they are united by race, identity, history, and destiny. That is the source of strength, a new Prussianism.

Also, it’s about time we got rid of this notion of ‘America’. It has a divisive effect between Europeans and white ‘Americans’. The idea of ‘Americans’ suggests that white ‘Americans’ have more in common with black ‘Americans’, yellow ‘Americans’, and brown ‘Americans’ than with white Europeans. In fact, white ‘Americans’ have more in common with white Europeans. To accentuate this fact, we should get rid of the term ‘Americans’.
White ‘Americans’ should refer to themselves as Neo-Europeans. Indeed, white America should be called Neo-Europe. There is Old Europe(or Original Europe) and New Europe(that is America). Or First Europe and Second Europe.
America was not a new beginning but an extension of European Civilization.
Indeed, the first settlers of America understood this. They called their settlement ‘New England’. And they called a city ‘New York’. There was a sense of continuity with prota-Europe or First Europe.

When white ‘Americans’ refer to themselves as Second Europeans or Neo-Europeans, they will closer to prota-Europeans than with Muslim-Americans, Black-Americans, and etc.

“Maybe White Folks should look to German history to forge a New Order.”

“The year 1941 will be, I am convinced, the historical year of a great European New Order.”-Adolf Hitler, Berlin Sportpalast

That didn’t work out very well (1945).

“...white conservatives can become like Prussia...they are united by race, identity, history and destiny. That is the source of strength, a new Prussianism.”

That didn’t work out well either (1918).

“Also, it’s about time we got rid of this notion of ‘America’.”

Right. How about Prussia-Amerika, or Prussmerika for short?

We can bring back the stechschritt (goose step) and pickelhaube (especially the helmets with ridiculous cast birds and horsehair plumes). To say nothing of military-style uniforms for all. Everyone from restroom attendants, janitors and ditch-diggers to army generals (with lots and lots of medals). Then, of course, we can enact universal conscription to help the volk get on the same page. Add any threat and presto, a unifying war with bloodletting that clarifies the mind.

There’s nothing new about peddling ethno-chauvinism. Toss in fear mongering , a dash of racism, and “defense measures” (aggressive war) and you can wake up with your world in ashes.

Germans migrated to America despite “race, identity, history and destiny.” Opportunity may have had something to do with it, as well as escaping conscription. It wasn’t to be reunited with the long-lost Volk.

Why don't we ask the Aborigines in Australia what their thoughts are on the subject? They have experience with British officials and millions of settlers.

The short answer is that there wouldn’t have been the millions of settlers though, when one looks round the British Empire there would have been Indian traders and perhaps Chinese labour to build railways – but they wouldn’t have had the labouers’ union and party running the courts.

I've long been under the impression that the Japanese imperialist crowd were mostly interested in attempting to secure themselves against relentless Western imperial encroachment by forming the Co-Prosperity Sphere, including the coastal areas of China, as a sort of mirror to the Monroe Doctrine, and getting resources wherever they could.

I don't believe that destroying China outright was either their intent or within their capability. How would they have benefited from destroying it?

Anyway, I am always open to learn something new and to have my errors corrected, so kindly indulge me here.

Thanks!

I guess “destroy China outright” is not the best description.
However, what the Japanese DID do was to ruthlessly exploit China’s people & resources.
Nanking is a fairly accurate reflection of Japanese attitudes to China. Massacre, Police State, arbitrary “justice”, and the planned AND ad hoc /casual liquidation (& rape, enslavement & prostitution) of millions of Chinese.

Nanking is a fairly accurate reflection of Japanese attitudes to China.

Ah, the old Nanking canard. Meanwhile the sins of the usual perps are glossed over or rationalized when not completely swept under the rug. As Stalin himself once quipped, it’s an old trick to blame others for one’s own sins.

However, what the Japanese DID do was to ruthlessly exploit China’s people & resources.

Even a non-expert on the subject such as myself recognizes that as probable hypocrisy if not total propaganda. Funny how the histories of the great imperialists condemn the little, late-coming imperialists for what the biggies had been doing for decades if not centuries.

It may also make some sense to remember that the US has a pattern of using people then tossing them under the bus. It betrayed its allies, the Philippine freedom fighters after the Spanish American duck shoot. The US also betrayed its Arab-Muslim allies after the first world war for economic supremacy, and it betrayed its ally, Japan, by demonizing and destroying it in the second war to control the world. (Some may recognize a pattern there.)

Before commenting further and regurgitating the usual (corrupted) mythology, you may want to take the time to study the matters upon which you feel compelled to expound.

I believe a good start would be the article from which the following quotes are taken.:

“Coming late in the imperial game of Asia, and not willing to risk large-scale expenditure of troops, the U.S., led by Olney and continued by the Republicans, decided to link up with Great Britain. The two countries would then use the Japanese to provide the shock troops that would roll back Russia and Germany and parcel out imperial benefits to both of her faraway allies, in a division of spoils known euphemistically as the “Open Door.” …

A major impetus toward a more aggressive [US] policy in Asia was provided by the lure of railroad concessions....Olney and the State Department pressed China hard for concessions to the ACDC for a Peking-Hankow Railway and for a railway across Manchuria, but in both cases the American syndicate was blocked. Russia pressured China successfully to grant that country the right to build a Manchurian railway; and a Belgian syndicate, backed by France and Russia, won the Peking-Hankow concession from China.

It was time for sterner measures. The attorney for the ACDC set up the Committee on American Interests in China, which soon transformed itself into the American Asiatic Association, dedicated to a more aggressive American policy on behalf of economic interests in China. After helping the European powers suppress the nationalist Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900, the U.S. also helped push Russian troops out of Manchuria. Finally, in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt egged Japan on to attack Russia, and Japan succeeded in driving Russia out of Manchuria and ending Russia’s economic concessions. Roosevelt readily acceded to Japan’s resulting dominance in Korea and Manchuria, hoping that Japan would also protect American economic interests in the area.

An interesting line of thought to follow, though I think, to start with, you exaggerate considerably the quasi taxing power conferred or delegated by government to the corporate sector

Let me float an idea or two from other angles.

One is that it is the US dollar's reserve status and the fact of $US investments being the ultimate safe haven that is much more the cause of middle and working class discontents than any machinations of the 0.01 per cent. Offshoring jobs - which is surely as much Christian as capitalist unless we believe that real poverty in Asia shouldn't be relieved at the expense of Americans living less well than their parents - wouldn't occur if the dollar had never risen in exchange value above half (or whatever) where it is now.

Another is specially for anti-Fed fanatics - and could be elucidated better no doubt by Sam Shama. It is to point out that money and credit are virtually identical (although not all forms of either are identical in their impact).

In the contemporary world there is always vast latent spending power and turning spending power into GDP which is so widely used as the criterion of economuc health is the not so easy trick in a rich ageing society.

Every house that is less than fully mortgaged is a potential source of spending power. Anyone with a good salary could get a low interest loan today to support the starting of a business. And government credit is still very good as proven by interest rates.

A slight divergence perhaps, but it is sad that the intellect of American politicians hasn't trumped ideology and emotion and embraced good long term low interest debt to fix and build American infrastructure while employing Americans.

The Fed has in fact been left by politicians to make up for their inadequacies but can't get far pushing in a piece of string however glittering. I am not sure how getting the Fed out of the way and leaving money creation (again - as before 1812 and 1911 ??) to the private sector would help anything. Me, I'ld settle for payment in bills of exchange written by Google and accepted by Apple. The trouble is their credit would be so appealing that they would be tempted to flood the market with promises to pay in US dollars and off we would go on a merry go round again that would make historians talk of South Sea Bubble and Tulip Mania

“. I am not sure how getting the Fed out of the way and leaving money creation (again – as before 1812 and 1911 ??) to the private sector would help anything”
Sorry, but essentially the private sector DOES do the money creation. Every time a bank issues a loan it “creates” money–as long as it maintains legal reserves it can theoretically loan for ever (The Bank of England notoriously admitted this).
Sad thing is, Congress has the legal power to issue debt-free money, but chooses rather to debt in-serf future generations (via bond sales) and enrich (engorge) the 0.01%.

Yes money or credit as good as money is created in many private transactions but the leaving it to the private sector I referred to could mean no regulation that would prevent the Great South Sea Bubble Bank from creating money on a base of virtually no "capital adequacy" and would mean no lender of last resort.

Yes Congress could choose to legislate for Treasury accounts to be created at the Fed with $100 billion added each year (gross) and those lisbilities on the Fed's balance sheet could presumably be dealt with in a number of ways including treating the Fed as insolvent but allowing it legally to continue in business while insolvent. I am not sure how much difference that would make compared with very long term borrowing at zero real interest. Could it make Congress even less disciplined in its approach to spending?

Read Jung Chang's EMPRESS DOWAGER book--or at least the NYRB review if you don't want to read the book itself.

Jung understands Brits did bad imperialist things but also admits how the West forced changes upon China that were necessary.

If Brits had never come to China, China would still be a land of women with bound feet.

*jung understands Brits did bad imperialist things but also admits how the West forced changes upon
China that were necessary.

If Brits had never come to China, China would still be a land of women with bound feet.*

the eradiction of bound feet has nothing to do with brits.

but chinese definitely had the brits to thank for being called the ‘sick men of east asia’ [opium ],
the burning of yuan ming yuen, etc.
that was the wake up call for chinese like sun yat sen to overturn the corrupt manchu court .

It is bitter fruit, but each passing day shows that modern society is too heavy of a lift for democracy.

No doubt the Chinese government would say that it is for that reason that they introduce democracy at the local level where it is likely that people will know and understand what they are dealing with….

You might be a bit generous to Imperial Britain with the numbers in South Asia:"When the part played by the British Empire in the 19th century is regarded by the historian 50 years hence, the unnecessary deaths of millions of Indians would be its principal and most notorious monument." "Drought and monsoons afflicted much of China, southern Africa, Brazil, Egypt and India. The death tolls were staggering: around 12m Chinese and over 6m Indians in 1876-1878 alone. The chief culprit, according to Davis, was not the weather, but European empires, with Japan and the US. Their imposition of free-market economics on the colonial world was tantamount to a "cultural genocide".""Development economists have long argued that drought need not lead to famine; well-stocked inventories and effective distribution can limit the damage. In the 19th century, however, drought was treated, particularly by the English in India, as an opportunity for reasserting sovereignty."https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/jan/20/historybooks.famine

Incidentally, with contemporaneous historical events such as these, it puts into perspective the violent reaction against unfettered capitalism in the form of Communism that arose shortly after.

Also, don't know if you've come across this site by Matthew White:http://necrometrics.com/warstatx.htm

He is fairly meticulous and cites his sources and hits everyone (and I mean everyone) with a hammer - all of us should be embarrassed by how barbaric the human race can be.

Peace.

ah, i underestimate the death toll in the bengal famine by 75% !
no wonder indians got worked up whenever the brits reminded them about ‘british contribution’ to modern india. !

re the site http://necrometrics.com
when i look at the china entry, these names leap out at me,
zbig, wapo, afp, wnd, ….
no introduction needed, all right wing rags, zbig of course is the father of all neocon, mentor of obomber !

harry wu was a chinese ‘dissident’ whose veracity was found wanting on many occassions.
a ned beneficiary no less !

jung chang, hmmm..
its amazing how a murkkan wog’s book on china could be considered the holy grail for china study!
it has been pointed out her book was hardly the shinning example of objective reporting.
jung reminds me of another murkkan wog, gordon chang.
he’s famous/notorious for his prediction of ‘coming collapse of china’ for the past TWO DECADES !
these two are, shall we say, washington’s ‘useful assets’ ??

how much is blatant distortion, the death toll ?
how much is outright lie, calling the famine casualties as victims ‘murdered’ by mao ???

I understand where you are coming from. I don't know enough about Chinese history to form an educated opinion, but from what I've seen on his numbers and writings on wars/massacres where Muslims are involved, he has been fairly objective about sources. Also, from what I've read on his site, he is open to constructive criticism and reviewing his sources, but I guess he gets lots of people yelling at him and calling him names (I can imagine). So if you approach it right, you may be able to sway him on a few numbers regarding China.

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." -- Churchill's remark after Chamberlain returned from signing the Munich Pact with Hitler

There is no way to avoid the financial catastrophe ahead of us, the money has been spent (or obligated) and the piper must be paid. We do have a choice of facing the difficulty honestly and preparing for the inevitable wars that will follow or continuing to pretend that the pain can be avoided and being unprepared when war comes upon us like a thief in the night.

The mass of humanity will always choose to avoid facing pain. This promises to be a very interesting century.

Churchill was a warmonger. There are too many examples of his blind commitment to military solutions to solve England’s “challenges” to go into here. When WW II ended, his beloved England had lost it’s status as a world power. When will the blind hero worship of him end?

"I’m guessing that the unemployed IT people will lose a lot of their warm-and-fuzzies for Disney’s Leftist-lunacy."
You really believe that corporations care about political affiliation? When Ronald Reagan gave a blanket amnesty to the hordes of illegal migrants, was he really a hard-left socialist or was he a servant to the US corporations (and more) and their desires of cheap labor? What kind of patriotism the exceptional 1-percenters have been showing by demolishing the US industries and hiring instead the cheap labor abroad (and not being punished for this at all?) Perhaps if this country were more democratic, it would stop waging the idiotic wars of aggression for the benefits of major warmongers and instead invest in great projects at home - these projects would re-channel the trillions of dollars to creating a massive amount of jobs for the US citizenry. Instead we have 1%.
The Pentagon can't account for $6.5 trillion - and this is just for the last 10 years. And yet they are not able to protect the US borders (to do their job). Funny. Have they really tried? After 9/11 we had 7 years of GOP administration (remember Cheney and Rove - do they look like Libs?) and almost 8 years of DEMs administration (do extrajudicial renditions and persecution of whistleblowers look peachy-liberal for you?) Should not we honestly admit that the US government is a government of corporations and for corporations?
The popular reaction in Europe towards violation of EU borders by refugees and migrants is negative, meaning that the democratic intuition of Europeans is against the US plans to dump the consequences of the US idiotic policies in the Middle East on Europeans. Were these idiotic policies conceived by the US citizenry at large? - No. What about the US citizenry desire to have universal health care by paying taxes directly to a Government of the People instead of the blood0sucking insurance companies? What about Monsanto making its rules in Congress ... or Oilmen making their rules for fracking? That Mrs. Clinton calls herself a democrat only shows the sorry state of democracy in the US. This is the problem.

Great comment Anne.
Like the old saying has it: there are two factions( R & D) of the ONE party– the Business Party.

all we have to do is take a look at what the english 'pilgrims' did to the native americans. [mother of all genocide],

the south asia indians [bengal famine, 3m dead]

the chagosians, [robbed of their homeland, exiled to slums 2000 miles away],

the australian aborigines [another genocide]

etc etc etc........................

p.s.
its amazing how people feels no shame uttering such patent nonsense, emboldened by the shield
of anonymity !

You are a satirist of course!

Tibet (some actual people other than the monks immolating themselves ??) “marched proudly into the 21st century as part of China”!!. You mean they had a choice to be independent Tibet or part of another country? But I think you are actually just using sleight of hand in the form of flowery meaningless words to say that Tibetans – though they may resent Han domination and immigration – are better off in the 21st century than they would have been under any other possible history. And of course any fairly run opinion poll in Tibet would show indeed that 5 per cent of native Tibetans agree that they live in the best of all possible worlds, love their Han neighbours and think the killings, starvings and exiles that were incidental to building the proud marching Tibet of the 21st century were a small price to pay – by others.

Extreme anachronistic confusion is another amusing trick. Early 17th century pilgrims equals 1903 British The mind boggles.

And I bet you don’t even know the one respectable source from which you can get a few words of support for calling one aspect of what some Australian Aborigines experienced “genocide”. In fact it is generally a word, in that context, which operates like “racist” in most to ensure that nothing sensible or informative will be said or heard.

"And of course any fairly run opinion poll in Tibet would show indeed that 5 per cent of native Tibetans agree that they live in the best of all possible worlds, love their Han neighbours and think the killings, starvings and exiles that were incidental to building the proud marching Tibet of the 21st century were a small price to pay – by others."

You are just spilling nonsense. What killing, starving you are talking about? There is indeed poll taken on the Tibetans in China and their level of Chinese nationalism exceeds that of the Han.

However I do understand why the narrative of 'Tibetans being oppressed' has such high currency among many in the world because it just feel so true. After all ethnic oppression on the vulnerable ethnic groups by the majority has been the historic experience on many parts of the world.

I might add that had ethnic oppression been part of the Han culture then the Han people would never have existed in the first place. The so called Han ethnic group are basically many ethnic groups that coalesced together through the long history of China. That's why there are close to 1.3 billions of them in this world. That's why Han people throughout China still speaks their own version of dialect that are very often mutually intelligible to each other. That is why if you look at the map of China today and look at the area where ethnic minorities reside they are all in remote hard to get area. Because had it not they would already have become Han themselves thousand years ago. American didn't invent this melting pot thing. Chinese do.

*But I think you are actually just using sleight of hand in the form of flowery meaningless words to say that Tibetans – though they may resent Han domination and immigration – are better off in the 21st century than they would have been under any other possible history.*

anon the troll make a ludicrous speculation,
tibet would be better under british rule.

i show that he's talking thru his ass, just ask the native americans, indians, chagosians, australians, amongst others !
these are living proof of life under british colonisation.

u'r the one using 'sleight of hand in the form of flowery meaningless words '

*5 % satisfaction*

really ?
i dont indulge in wild conjecture,
common sense would suffice,
with free education, tax exemption, subsidised economy....
tibetans must be way more contented with their lot than the hapless subjects of brit colonisation.

dont u think so ?

p.s.
now go brush up on your language comprehension, logic and history.
else i wont be so general in giving u free education again.

"Compared to what the Puritans found, or the pioneers heading out West on the wagon trains, the USA in the late 1800′s was ‘ready built’."

Ready built for the next round of progress. Ready built by immigrants and former slaves and Native Americans.

"The reason people are coming here is because of the opportunity that has been created and passed down by those who saw wilderness and planted the seeds of what we have today."

Which is exactly what defines America.

"But the point is today’s immigrants can come to Boston and have access to the finest educational institutions in the world, courtesy in large part of those who hacked out a civilization from the wilderness four centuries ago."

Initially constructed by yesterday's immigrants, with meaningful additions by generations thereafter. Again, that is what defines America.

As to your second par…. what relevant building did the Native Americans do? What buiding did “former (sic) slaves”?

Regarding black African slaves, gee, I don't know, maybe they helped make northern shipowners and southern plantation owners wealthy with their labor. It appears to me that was an early form of "free stuff" for white Europeans.

If we enforced the laws against employing illegals the entire food industry would collapse. From the nurseries that produce the seeds from every farm and ranch in the country through the slaughter houses and processing plants from the mega distribution warehouses to every supermarket and restaurant in the country the food industry is the biggest employer of illegals

I know there are a few mom and pop restaurants in remote rural areas run by White families that employ only Whites but the food industry is the enemy of Whites because it doesn't employ Whites.

Another major enemy is medicine Medicine employs both legal non White immigrant Drs nurses and t chnucians and illegals in cleaning and hospital cafeterias.

Computers, engineering and other tech jobs are pretty much no White American need apply. Go to Redmond Wa or anywhere in Silicon Valley and all you will see is non White immigrants in tech jobs.

How about this: block new illegal immigrants, deport existing ones & seriously prosecute employers who continue hiring illegals. For any short fall in the ranks of labour, enforce living wages– I wouldn’t be surprised if native Americans then took up the slack. Also, police H1B visas, & just to reduce employer demands for such visas, again, enforce minimum wages appropriate to each particular job category.
Affect profits ? Yes, in the short/medium term. But, fair wages are simply another cost of civilization….
But… like any of this has a snow ball’s chance in hell….

"...block new illegal immigrants, deport existing ones & seriously prosecute employers who continue hiring illegals..."
The solutions is indeed very simple: when rule of law is applied consistently even for a short time, people take notice. Like when being fined for speeding.
The naked truth is the US government has not been protecting the US borders from illegal immigration. And all these kabuki dances at the airports is cosmetics if not an outright fraud. The enormous increase in security apparatus has been fantastic for various military contractors and insiders like Mr. Chertoff. Instead of wasting trillions of dollars on "homeland security" and "defensive" wars of aggression in the Middle East (the murderous, ruinous wars), the money could have been invested in eduction, infrastructure, and protection of environment -- which would create a lot of jobs and improve the lives of millions of American citizens. But that was never a goal.
Again, what kind of very expensive and expansive "homeland security" leaves a country's borders open for undocumented illegals?
Time to reinstate the universal draft.

Churchill was a warmonger. There are too many examples of his blind commitment to military solutions to solve England's "challenges" to go into here. When WW II ended, his beloved England had lost it's status as a world power. When will the blind hero worship of him end?

When will the blind hero worship of [Churchill] end?

When, indeed.

That self absorbed degenerate adolescent sociopath is a great example of what’s wrong with Homo sappyenz.

I guess "destroy China outright" is not the best description.
However, what the Japanese DID do was to ruthlessly exploit China's people & resources.
Nanking is a fairly accurate reflection of Japanese attitudes to China. Massacre, Police State, arbitrary "justice", and the planned AND ad hoc /casual liquidation (& rape, enslavement & prostitution) of millions of Chinese.

Nanking is a fairly accurate reflection of Japanese attitudes to China.

Ah, the old Nanking canard. Meanwhile the sins of the usual perps are glossed over or rationalized when not completely swept under the rug. As Stalin himself once quipped, it’s an old trick to blame others for one’s own sins.

However, what the Japanese DID do was to ruthlessly exploit China’s people & resources.

Even a non-expert on the subject such as myself recognizes that as probable hypocrisy if not total propaganda. Funny how the histories of the great imperialists condemn the little, late-coming imperialists for what the biggies had been doing for decades if not centuries.

It may also make some sense to remember that the US has a pattern of using people then tossing them under the bus. It betrayed its allies, the Philippine freedom fighters after the Spanish American duck shoot. The US also betrayed its Arab-Muslim allies after the first world war for economic supremacy, and it betrayed its ally, Japan, by demonizing and destroying it in the second war to control the world. (Some may recognize a pattern there.)

Before commenting further and regurgitating the usual (corrupted) mythology, you may want to take the time to study the matters upon which you feel compelled to expound.

I believe a good start would be the article from which the following quotes are taken.:

“Coming late in the imperial game of Asia, and not willing to risk large-scale expenditure of troops, the U.S., led by Olney and continued by the Republicans, decided to link up with Great Britain. The two countries would then use the Japanese to provide the shock troops that would roll back Russia and Germany and parcel out imperial benefits to both of her faraway allies, in a division of spoils known euphemistically as the “Open Door.” …

A major impetus toward a more aggressive [US] policy in Asia was provided by the lure of railroad concessions….Olney and the State Department pressed China hard for concessions to the ACDC for a Peking-Hankow Railway and for a railway across Manchuria, but in both cases the American syndicate was blocked. Russia pressured China successfully to grant that country the right to build a Manchurian railway; and a Belgian syndicate, backed by France and Russia, won the Peking-Hankow concession from China.

It was time for sterner measures. The attorney for the ACDC set up the Committee on American Interests in China, which soon transformed itself into the American Asiatic Association, dedicated to a more aggressive American policy on behalf of economic interests in China. After helping the European powers suppress the nationalist Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900, the U.S. also helped push Russian troops out of Manchuria. Finally, in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt egged Japan on to attack Russia, and Japan succeeded in driving Russia out of Manchuria and ending Russia’s economic concessions. Roosevelt readily acceded to Japan’s resulting dominance in Korea and Manchuria, hoping that Japan would also protect American economic interests in the area.

Er, don't deny any of that ? Er, NOT excusing Western imperialism in ANY way. But, er you seem to be what...I hesitate to say, but...whitewashing the Japanese ? No, really ? Your worldview can't contain wrongs by ALL parties because that might imply one party was better/worse than another ?
As for imperial Japan, OUR CRIMES don't NEGATE THEIR CRIMES, smart Alec. "Canards" ? Really ? Oh, fuck off smart arse.

How about this: block new illegal immigrants, deport existing ones & seriously prosecute employers who continue hiring illegals. For any short fall in the ranks of labour, enforce living wages-- I wouldn't be surprised if native Americans then took up the slack. Also, police H1B visas, & just to reduce employer demands for such visas, again, enforce minimum wages appropriate to each particular job category.
Affect profits ? Yes, in the short/medium term. But, fair wages are simply another cost of civilization....
But... like any of this has a snow ball's chance in hell....

“…block new illegal immigrants, deport existing ones & seriously prosecute employers who continue hiring illegals…”
The solutions is indeed very simple: when rule of law is applied consistently even for a short time, people take notice. Like when being fined for speeding.
The naked truth is the US government has not been protecting the US borders from illegal immigration. And all these kabuki dances at the airports is cosmetics if not an outright fraud. The enormous increase in security apparatus has been fantastic for various military contractors and insiders like Mr. Chertoff. Instead of wasting trillions of dollars on “homeland security” and “defensive” wars of aggression in the Middle East (the murderous, ruinous wars), the money could have been invested in eduction, infrastructure, and protection of environment — which would create a lot of jobs and improve the lives of millions of American citizens. But that was never a goal.
Again, what kind of very expensive and expansive “homeland security” leaves a country’s borders open for undocumented illegals?
Time to reinstate the universal draft.

Nanking is a fairly accurate reflection of Japanese attitudes to China.

Ah, the old Nanking canard. Meanwhile the sins of the usual perps are glossed over or rationalized when not completely swept under the rug. As Stalin himself once quipped, it’s an old trick to blame others for one’s own sins.

However, what the Japanese DID do was to ruthlessly exploit China’s people & resources.

Even a non-expert on the subject such as myself recognizes that as probable hypocrisy if not total propaganda. Funny how the histories of the great imperialists condemn the little, late-coming imperialists for what the biggies had been doing for decades if not centuries.

It may also make some sense to remember that the US has a pattern of using people then tossing them under the bus. It betrayed its allies, the Philippine freedom fighters after the Spanish American duck shoot. The US also betrayed its Arab-Muslim allies after the first world war for economic supremacy, and it betrayed its ally, Japan, by demonizing and destroying it in the second war to control the world. (Some may recognize a pattern there.)

Before commenting further and regurgitating the usual (corrupted) mythology, you may want to take the time to study the matters upon which you feel compelled to expound.

I believe a good start would be the article from which the following quotes are taken.:

“Coming late in the imperial game of Asia, and not willing to risk large-scale expenditure of troops, the U.S., led by Olney and continued by the Republicans, decided to link up with Great Britain. The two countries would then use the Japanese to provide the shock troops that would roll back Russia and Germany and parcel out imperial benefits to both of her faraway allies, in a division of spoils known euphemistically as the “Open Door.” …

A major impetus toward a more aggressive [US] policy in Asia was provided by the lure of railroad concessions....Olney and the State Department pressed China hard for concessions to the ACDC for a Peking-Hankow Railway and for a railway across Manchuria, but in both cases the American syndicate was blocked. Russia pressured China successfully to grant that country the right to build a Manchurian railway; and a Belgian syndicate, backed by France and Russia, won the Peking-Hankow concession from China.

It was time for sterner measures. The attorney for the ACDC set up the Committee on American Interests in China, which soon transformed itself into the American Asiatic Association, dedicated to a more aggressive American policy on behalf of economic interests in China. After helping the European powers suppress the nationalist Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900, the U.S. also helped push Russian troops out of Manchuria. Finally, in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt egged Japan on to attack Russia, and Japan succeeded in driving Russia out of Manchuria and ending Russia’s economic concessions. Roosevelt readily acceded to Japan’s resulting dominance in Korea and Manchuria, hoping that Japan would also protect American economic interests in the area.

So, you see, don't you, that the story is a little more involved than what's commonly told.

Er, don’t deny any of that ? Er, NOT excusing Western imperialism in ANY way. But, er you seem to be what…I hesitate to say, but…whitewashing the Japanese ? No, really ? Your worldview can’t contain wrongs by ALL parties because that might imply one party was better/worse than another ?
As for imperial Japan, OUR CRIMES don’t NEGATE THEIR CRIMES, smart Alec. “Canards” ? Really ? Oh, fuck off smart arse.

Ha! you missed the point. I neither said, nor implied, that one crime negated another.

If anything, my implication is that one party is no better than another, and by extension to infer that we should be aware of, and do something about our own ( much worse) crimes than to point fingers at others.

You, yourself seem to recognize that concept with this.:

animalogic says: August 19, 2016 at 9:04 am GMT

...Like the old saying has it: there are two factions( R & D) of the ONE party– the Business Party.

Canards” ? Really ?

Yup, canards. You could also call it hackneyed, simplisitic, overused propaganda that's well beyond its "use by" date as well.

Oh, fuck off smart arse.

Now that's funny! ROFL...

PS: I liked your comment here, and may I also point out that the Fed IS a also a private ( though mafia like) corporation? How's that for being a smart arse? ;)

Regarding black African slaves, gee, I don’t know, maybe they helped make northern shipowners and southern plantation owners wealthy with their labor. It appears to me that was an early form of “free stuff” for white Europeans.

I may read your link about Native Americans but I am not encouraged by the looseness of your intellectual operations as evidenced by your totally ignoring my big flag in the shape of "sic". Are you used to kindergarten explanations? Must everything important to precision be not only flagged but spelled out in words of three letters?

This idea that Europeans took stuff from other people and somehow owe these countries a debt misunderstands the nature of development. Europeans created conditions for the generation of surplus and from that surplus came development. Everybody got 'free stuff' but some got more than others. Everyone benefited. And most people suffered for that benefit - development. The history of European peoples is one of slavery (as well as slaving) and poverty and cruelty (as well as riches and luxury).

ah, i underestimate the death toll in the bengal famine by 75% !
no wonder indians got worked up whenever the brits reminded them about 'british contribution' to modern india. !

re the site http://necrometrics.com
when i look at the china entry, these names leap out at me,
zbig, wapo, afp, wnd, ....
no introduction needed, all right wing rags, zbig of course is the father of all neocon, mentor of obomber !

harry wu was a chinese 'dissident' whose veracity was found wanting on many occassions.
a ned beneficiary no less !

jung chang, hmmm..
its amazing how a murkkan wog's book on china could be considered the holy grail for china study!
it has been pointed out her book was hardly the shinning example of objective reporting.
jung reminds me of another murkkan wog, gordon chang.
he's famous/notorious for his prediction of 'coming collapse of china' for the past TWO DECADES !
these two are, shall we say, washington's 'useful assets' ??

how much is blatant distortion, the death toll ?
how much is outright lie, calling the famine casualties as victims 'murdered' by mao ???

Hey denk,

I understand where you are coming from. I don’t know enough about Chinese history to form an educated opinion, but from what I’ve seen on his numbers and writings on wars/massacres where Muslims are involved, he has been fairly objective about sources. Also, from what I’ve read on his site, he is open to constructive criticism and reviewing his sources, but I guess he gets lots of people yelling at him and calling him names (I can imagine). So if you approach it right, you may be able to sway him on a few numbers regarding China.

You won't be surprised that Sun Yat Sen was baptized in Hong Kong by an American missionary of the Congregational Church of the United States and that Chiang Kai Shek (who was the brother in law of Sun) was baptized in the Methodist (American) church. He might have believed that Christianity reinforced Confucian moral teachings. But notice that the Taipin ideology was to completely replace Confucianism, the backbone of the Chinese society. Was not that the slogan of Mao's 'cultural revolution'?

Yes it seems the Taiping lot were, comparatively, Red state yokels and populists – with some of their leaders having the morals of typical televangelists.

all we have to do is take a look at what the english 'pilgrims' did to the native americans. [mother of all genocide],

the south asia indians [bengal famine, 3m dead]

the chagosians, [robbed of their homeland, exiled to slums 2000 miles away],

the australian aborigines [another genocide]

etc etc etc........................

p.s.
its amazing how people feels no shame uttering such patent nonsense, emboldened by the shield
of anonymity !

Brits did some great stuff in HK, Singapore, Malaysia, and etc.

And British Imperialism only replaced Mughal Imperialism in India.

Indians resented the English but also admired them.

Gandhi initially wanted to be like an English gentleman.

But he got called a ‘wog’ and got kicked off the train, like in the movie.

British feel bad about that, and Brits now allow immigration to UK to give the ‘wogs’ a second chance at admiring and emulating British ways. But the Brits act too apologetic now, and the ‘wogs’ now come mostly for raping teens and praying to Allah or listening to rap.

Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted.
But the Brits were pretty decent and accommodating to civilized folks. Remember that some British guy wrote Lost Horizon that idealized the Tibetans.

At the very least, the Brits respected one another. In contrast, Mao had 50 million of his countrymen killed.

Also, Brits acted ruthlessly when they needed to keep the order. Mao’s Great Leap and Cultural Revolution were mad orgies of total lunacy.

*Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted.
But the Brits were pretty decent and accommodating to civilized folks. Remember that some British guy wrote Lost Horizon that idealized the Tibetans.*

wow , the cheek of it all !
this jerk is saying the brits had to resort to extreme means to clear out the indigenuous in north america , diego garcia cuz those were 'savages' there !.
but those brit gents can be very 'accommodating' to 'civilised' folks like tibetans.

is this how they treat the 'civilised' tibetans ?

+At the turn of the century, in 1903, Britain decided that Tibet should come under its influence along with India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and China. At that time, Britain sent an invading force into Tibet.

Earlier British government expeditions had reported that Tibet was rich with natural resources and even said that "masses of gold were lying around in the rivers." They may have believed they had found another empire like the Incan empire in what is now Peru, where Spanish conquistadors stole a wealth of gold.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, in July 1903 Lord Curzon, viceroy of India, authorized Col. Francis Younghusband and a military escort to cross the Tibetan border to negotiate a trade treaty.

"When efforts to begin negotiations failed," the encyclopedia reports, "the British, under the command of Maj. Gen. James Macdonald, invaded the country and slaughtered some 600 Tibetans at Guru. Younghusband moved on to Chiang-tzu (Gyantze), where his second attempt to begin trade negotiations also failed. He then marched into Lhasa, the capital, with British troops and forced the conclusion of a trade treaty with the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s ruler. This action brought him a knighthood in 1904."

British journalist Alan Winnington writes in his book "Tibet" that the treaty "made Tibet as far as possible a British sphere of influence."+

http://www.workers.org/ww/tibet1204.html

careful there !
u'r digging a deeper hole for yourself each time u open foul mouth. !

*And British Imperialism only replaced Mughal Imperialism in India.
Indians resented the English but also admired them.*

yeah they even adopted the english 'pacifying' tactics in kashmir,
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/06/legalized-tyranny-indias-armed-forces-special-powers-act/
no doubt u'd approve cuz it's the only way to keep 'law and order' eh ?

Er, don't deny any of that ? Er, NOT excusing Western imperialism in ANY way. But, er you seem to be what...I hesitate to say, but...whitewashing the Japanese ? No, really ? Your worldview can't contain wrongs by ALL parties because that might imply one party was better/worse than another ?
As for imperial Japan, OUR CRIMES don't NEGATE THEIR CRIMES, smart Alec. "Canards" ? Really ? Oh, fuck off smart arse.

Ha! you missed the point. I neither said, nor implied, that one crime negated another.

If anything, my implication is that one party is no better than another, and by extension to infer that we should be aware of, and do something about our own ( much worse) crimes than to point fingers at others.

You, yourself seem to recognize that concept with this.:

animalogic says:
August 19, 2016 at 9:04 am GMT

…Like the old saying has it: there are two factions( R & D) of the ONE party– the Business Party.

Canards” ? Really ?

Yup, canards. You could also call it hackneyed, simplisitic, overused propaganda that’s well beyond its “use by” date as well.

Oh, fuck off smart arse.

Now that’s funny! ROFL…

PS: I liked your comment here, and may I also point out that the Fed IS a also a private ( though mafia like) corporation? How’s that for being a smart arse?

The British first came to China humbly and with respect. It only wanted to trade.

Being quite an ignoramus myself, I'd be delighted to read any supporting evidence for that statement.

If it's true, then it seems to be quite out of character for the British Empire. Of course, I could be very wrong, but I'm wondering what those benevolent and innocent traders intended to do with all the opium produced in India through slave labor.

I totally agree - everyone has skeletons in their closets - and usually, the bigger the empire, the bigger the skeletons - and the Brits had a big one and one of the most recent ones (people are still alive who remember the British Raj) so it's just a matter of time - who brings up Tamerlane much anymore?

But 'just wet their beak' was a bit hyperbolic so I responded.

That paper is indeed interesting on the generally light affects of opium:
"Opium smokers, in short, could moderate their use for personal and social reasons and even cease taking it altogether without help."

That sounds pretty mild and I don't doubt it was in the interests of the Chinese to inflate the issue to get opinion on their side, however, I'm one of those guys who likes to see people put their money where their mouth is. Once I see Britain open up public opium consumption and allow smoking dens, I'll be less skeptical. Otherwise, if we demand the right to ban it, after all the current medical knowledge about it because of our perceptions on detriments to society, then the Chinese (now and then) had a right to assert that - otherwise it's just hypocrisy, no?

Isn’t it time to end the blame game about the past?

I'm all for it - kindly pass the memo to the people constantly bringing up Muslim conquests.

As I understand it the demand for tea in Britain resulted in a great depletion of silver used to pay for it. The introduction of opium was the device used to create addicts only too willing to pay silver and readdress the silver deficit.

Tibet (some actual people other than the monks immolating themselves ??) "marched proudly into the 21st century as part of China"!!. You mean they had a choice to be independent Tibet or part of another country? But I think you are actually just using sleight of hand in the form of flowery meaningless words to say that Tibetans - though they may resent Han domination and immigration - are better off in the 21st century than they would have been under any other possible history. And of course any fairly run opinion poll in Tibet would show indeed that 5 per cent of native Tibetans agree that they live in the best of all possible worlds, love their Han neighbours and think the killings, starvings and exiles that were incidental to building the proud marching Tibet of the 21st century were a small price to pay - by others.

Extreme anachronistic confusion is another amusing trick. Early 17th century pilgrims equals 1903 British The mind boggles.

And I bet you don't even know the one respectable source from which you can get a few words of support for calling one aspect of what some Australian Aborigines experienced "genocide". In fact it is generally a word, in that context, which operates like "racist" in most to ensure that nothing sensible or informative will be said or heard.

“And of course any fairly run opinion poll in Tibet would show indeed that 5 per cent of native Tibetans agree that they live in the best of all possible worlds, love their Han neighbours and think the killings, starvings and exiles that were incidental to building the proud marching Tibet of the 21st century were a small price to pay – by others.”

You are just spilling nonsense. What killing, starving you are talking about? There is indeed poll taken on the Tibetans in China and their level of Chinese nationalism exceeds that of the Han.

However I do understand why the narrative of ‘Tibetans being oppressed’ has such high currency among many in the world because it just feel so true. After all ethnic oppression on the vulnerable ethnic groups by the majority has been the historic experience on many parts of the world.

I might add that had ethnic oppression been part of the Han culture then the Han people would never have existed in the first place. The so called Han ethnic group are basically many ethnic groups that coalesced together through the long history of China. That’s why there are close to 1.3 billions of them in this world. That’s why Han people throughout China still speaks their own version of dialect that are very often mutually intelligible to each other. That is why if you look at the map of China today and look at the area where ethnic minorities reside they are all in remote hard to get area. Because had it not they would already have become Han themselves thousand years ago. American didn’t invent this melting pot thing. Chinese do.

I am predisposed to go along with a tough minded view of China as I am to some extent with Israel. But there's no getting away from it that China laid claim on and took over by force the once totally non Han territory of Tibet for strategic reasons to which the wishes of Tibetans were totally irrelevant. If the Tobetans had only had to put up with 1912 to 1940 or post 1978 Chinese government then I think I'ld have said it's tough love but ordinary Tibetans deserve something better than their rule by Buddhist monks.

I am of course a realist when it comes to fantasies of any seriously pre-modern people being able to rule themselves in a modern state. Certainly not Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guinea struggles. Bhutan maybe?

I note what you say about the Han peoples and have beem impressed by my learning - presumably correctly - that the. one child policy was not enforced against minorities such as Uighurs. Since their numbers are nowhere near threatening it is of course rational and sensible as well as humane.

". I am not sure how getting the Fed out of the way and leaving money creation (again – as before 1812 and 1911 ??) to the private sector would help anything"
Sorry, but essentially the private sector DOES do the money creation. Every time a bank issues a loan it "creates" money--as long as it maintains legal reserves it can theoretically loan for ever (The Bank of England notoriously admitted this).
Sad thing is, Congress has the legal power to issue debt-free money, but chooses rather to debt in-serf future generations (via bond sales) and enrich (engorge) the 0.01%.

Yes money or credit as good as money is created in many private transactions but the leaving it to the private sector I referred to could mean no regulation that would prevent the Great South Sea Bubble Bank from creating money on a base of virtually no “capital adequacy” and would mean no lender of last resort.

Yes Congress could choose to legislate for Treasury accounts to be created at the Fed with $100 billion added each year (gross) and those lisbilities on the Fed’s balance sheet could presumably be dealt with in a number of ways including treating the Fed as insolvent but allowing it legally to continue in business while insolvent. I am not sure how much difference that would make compared with very long term borrowing at zero real interest. Could it make Congress even less disciplined in its approach to spending?

Yes, I agree. I don't know how a legislature/executive could be trusted with "money creation"....but they can't be trusted with the power to borrow either. Ultimately, what's better for the US in the long run ? Exponential debt growth, and (possible) default or the danger of inflation & a world wide dumping of the dollar ?
Will the US have to massively print one day to pay it's debts ? Is there a choice/difference between open regulated money creation and sneaky QE "not printing" printing ?

Tibet (some actual people other than the monks immolating themselves ??) "marched proudly into the 21st century as part of China"!!. You mean they had a choice to be independent Tibet or part of another country? But I think you are actually just using sleight of hand in the form of flowery meaningless words to say that Tibetans - though they may resent Han domination and immigration - are better off in the 21st century than they would have been under any other possible history. And of course any fairly run opinion poll in Tibet would show indeed that 5 per cent of native Tibetans agree that they live in the best of all possible worlds, love their Han neighbours and think the killings, starvings and exiles that were incidental to building the proud marching Tibet of the 21st century were a small price to pay - by others.

Extreme anachronistic confusion is another amusing trick. Early 17th century pilgrims equals 1903 British The mind boggles.

And I bet you don't even know the one respectable source from which you can get a few words of support for calling one aspect of what some Australian Aborigines experienced "genocide". In fact it is generally a word, in that context, which operates like "racist" in most to ensure that nothing sensible or informative will be said or heard.

*But I think you are actually just using sleight of hand in the form of flowery meaningless words to say that Tibetans – though they may resent Han domination and immigration – are better off in the 21st century than they would have been under any other possible history.*

anon the troll make a ludicrous speculation,tibet would be better under british rule.

i show that he’s talking thru his ass, just ask the native americans, indians, chagosians, australians, amongst others !
these are living proof of life under british colonisation.

u’r the one using ‘sleight of hand in the form of flowery meaningless words ‘

*5 % satisfaction*

really ?
i dont indulge in wild conjecture,
common sense would suffice,
with free education, tax exemption, subsidised economy….
tibetans must be way more contented with their lot than the hapless subjects of brit colonisation.

dont u think so ?

p.s.
now go brush up on your language comprehension, logic and history.
else i wont be so general in giving u free education again.

The British first came to China humbly and with respect. It only wanted to trade. It was buying a lot of tea, and wanted China to buy some stuff in return.

And Brits were offering top-notch technology and all sorts of stuff the Chiners could have bought, emulated, and etc.

But the Chinese acted awful high and mighty and told the Brits to get lost.

Yes, the opium sales were bad, but the Brits realized it and stopped the sales out of shame.

Also, maybe opium wasn't AS BAD as some claimed.

I mean the British sold the smoking kind(that relaxed Noodles in Once Upon a Time in America), not the terrible heroin derivative.

http://www.frankdikotter.com/publications/the-myth-of-opium.pdf

Isn't it time to end the blame game about the past?

All these 'you guys were worst' and 'boo hoo, we are so sorry'.

Enuff already.

https://theamericanscholar.org/apologies-all-around/

The British first came to China humbly and with respect. It only wanted to trade.

Being quite an ignoramus myself, I’d be delighted to read any supporting evidence for that statement.

If it’s true, then it seems to be quite out of character for the British Empire. Of course, I could be very wrong, but I’m wondering what those benevolent and innocent traders intended to do with all the opium produced in India through slave labor.

"The British" is ambiguous. If the British government is meant then I suppose there could be reference to the embassy of I think the 1790s when the Emperor indicated that the trade goods proferred were of no interest and not needed by China so that, unless paying tribute they could p*** off.

Otherwise it was the East India Company stiil substantially privately controlled and making profits for shareholders. Of course they didn't want a fight or the expense of governing if they could make a buck by trade.

"Being quite an ignoramus myself, I’d be delighted to read any supporting evidence for that statement."

https://youtu.be/LQfmv9fIfu0?t=40m51s

"If it’s true, then it seems to be quite out of character for the British Empire. Of course, I could be very wrong, but I’m wondering what those benevolent and innocent traders intended to do with all the opium produced in India through slave labor."

There was no single policy for all peoples. All empires adapted to different needs and challenges. I mean it made no sense for Brits to treat Australian Aborigines, Egyptians, Chinese, Hindus, Arabs, black African tribesmen, and etc all the same. Depending on the power, development, and culture of different peoples, the British modulated their approach.

Needless to say, Brits were most successful with taking over sparsely populated lands and populating them with British men AND BRITISH WOMEN. Women were very important in the success of British colonization cuz they produced more white kids.
Spanish and Portuguese imperialism, in contrast, was mostly male-dominated, so the Hispanic males ended up mixing races with native women, and the product was the mestizo, an ambiguous being of both conquistador and conquered blood.

Brits did best with mostly empty lands settled by British men AND WOMENFOLK. United Stated, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Diversity is going to ruin this great achievement. It's so tragic. Diversity even made London into Afro-Muslimland. I mean WTF.

It's like the Russians were successful in taking Siberia cuz it's mostly vast empty land.
And Chinese were able to grab Tibet and Uighurland cuz they had low population density of backward folks. If Han Chinese wanna keep them, they have to flood them with Chinese men AND WOMENFOLK who will have lots of kibblers.

British had a different approach to savage folks who were numerous enough but not civilized. Take black Africans. Brits could rule over them, but long term prospects were problematic since Brits couldn't produce enough whites in such areas to become the majority.
As for India and parts of SE Asia and Middle East, Brits did come up high civilization(relatively speaking), and Brits treated such people with some degree of respect even as they could be overbearing. It's like the scene in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA where the British officer played by Anthony Quayle show respect to King Feisel.

Now, China was a different matter altogether. Because of its sheer size, the Brits over-estimated its power. It had great respect for Cathay as giant power worthy of respect. So, Brits figure they should just do business and forget about trying to take over China. But when Brits found out that the China had become the sick man of Asia, they got ready to strike. But even after the won the Opium Wars, Brits mostly asked for concessions than outright conquest. Brits wanted to control the ports for increased trade. And even though British clubs kept out the Chiners like Wasp country clubs kept out Jews, they were more than willing to teach the Brits lots of stuff. Watch NOBLE HOUSE. It's got some good stuff on how the Brits operated.
Brits could be ruthless and conniving. But also honorable and trustworthy. You had to know how to read them.

The British first came to China humbly and with respect. It only wanted to trade. It was buying a lot of tea, and wanted China to buy some stuff in return.

And Brits were offering top-notch technology and all sorts of stuff the Chiners could have bought, emulated, and etc.

But the Chinese acted awful high and mighty and told the Brits to get lost.

Yes, the opium sales were bad, but the Brits realized it and stopped the sales out of shame.

Also, maybe opium wasn't AS BAD as some claimed.

I mean the British sold the smoking kind(that relaxed Noodles in Once Upon a Time in America), not the terrible heroin derivative.

http://www.frankdikotter.com/publications/the-myth-of-opium.pdf

Isn't it time to end the blame game about the past?

All these 'you guys were worst' and 'boo hoo, we are so sorry'.

Enuff already.

https://theamericanscholar.org/apologies-all-around/

Hey Anonymny,

I totally agree – everyone has skeletons in their closets – and usually, the bigger the empire, the bigger the skeletons – and the Brits had a big one and one of the most recent ones (people are still alive who remember the British Raj) so it’s just a matter of time – who brings up Tamerlane much anymore?

But ‘just wet their beak’ was a bit hyperbolic so I responded.

That paper is indeed interesting on the generally light affects of opium:
“Opium smokers, in short, could moderate their use for personal and social reasons and even cease taking it altogether without help.”

That sounds pretty mild and I don’t doubt it was in the interests of the Chinese to inflate the issue to get opinion on their side, however, I’m one of those guys who likes to see people put their money where their mouth is. Once I see Britain open up public opium consumption and allow smoking dens, I’ll be less skeptical. Otherwise, if we demand the right to ban it, after all the current medical knowledge about it because of our perceptions on detriments to society, then the Chinese (now and then) had a right to assert that – otherwise it’s just hypocrisy, no?

Isn’t it time to end the blame game about the past?

I’m all for it – kindly pass the memo to the people constantly bringing up Muslim conquests.

When I first went to India there were indeed lots of people who or whose parents remembered the British Raj and remembered it nostalgically and with respect and/or fondness. Their own politicians tended to enhance that effect! Now I sense that nationalistic education is giving those under about 50 and certainly under 30 a more theoretical view with a small selection of facts that paints the Raj as an excuse for current intractable problems. Rather childish, but human and understandable.

I think opium became a problem for the Chinese not so much because it was a killer drug but because Chinese society had become so dreary, desperate, and filled with drudgery(and so decadent for the affluent) that the Chinese took to it like a fatso to donuts.

Chinese society was so constricting and oppressive that people sought an OUT, and opium was it. So, the mental condition/culture of a people affects how they will take to something.

It's like food. For most of us, donuts are something you have now and then. No problem. But for those with a host of anxieties, they seek comfort in the easy pleasures of food, and donuts become like a drug, and they gorge and gorge and they become major fatkins.

Take marijuana. When I was young, I was under the impression that it was an evil drug that made people totally zonked out like zombies. And in health class, we were told about certain chemicals in pot stays in your system and messes you up, and etc.

In college, I met a bunch of people who smoked that stuff, and I realized it didn't have this sinister impact on them that I was led to believe it did. They seemed to be normal people who have the habits under control. They used it recreationally on weekends, and some were smart people who did all the school work.

So, maybe opium was overly sensationalized like marijuana in public education.

But even with pot, some people do ruin their lives with it. They don't use it recreationally now and then but smoke it incessantly like it's their meaning of life.
The potheads. And some Negroes smoke endlessly. They put pot in blunts(cigars) and smoke that stuff cuz their entire culture is rap and drugs.

So, depending on the personality and attitude, people take to drugs in different ways.
This could be matter of individuality(some individuals are more indulgent than others) or 'culturality'(some cultures are more desperate for escapism because conditions are so dreary -- consider how so many Russians became drunkards under drab and dreary communism).

But he got called a 'wog' and got kicked off the train, like in the movie.

British feel bad about that, and Brits now allow immigration to UK to give the 'wogs' a second chance at admiring and emulating British ways. But the Brits act too apologetic now, and the 'wogs' now come mostly for raping teens and praying to Allah or listening to rap.

Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted.
But the Brits were pretty decent and accommodating to civilized folks. Remember that some British guy wrote Lost Horizon that idealized the Tibetans.

At the very least, the Brits respected one another. In contrast, Mao had 50 million of his countrymen killed.

Also, Brits acted ruthlessly when they needed to keep the order. Mao's Great Leap and Cultural Revolution were mad orgies of total lunacy.

*Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted.
But the Brits were pretty decent and accommodating to civilized folks. Remember that some British guy wrote Lost Horizon that idealized the Tibetans.*

wow , the cheek of it all !
this jerk is saying the brits had to resort to extreme means to clear out the indigenuous in north america , diego garcia cuz those were ‘savages’ there !.
but those brit gents can be very ‘accommodating’ to ‘civilised’ folks like tibetans.

is this how they treat the ‘civilised’ tibetans ?

+At the turn of the century, in 1903, Britain decided that Tibet should come under its influence along with India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and China. At that time, Britain sent an invading force into Tibet.

Earlier British government expeditions had reported that Tibet was rich with natural resources and even said that “masses of gold were lying around in the rivers.” They may have believed they had found another empire like the Incan empire in what is now Peru, where Spanish conquistadors stole a wealth of gold.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, in July 1903 Lord Curzon, viceroy of India, authorized Col. Francis Younghusband and a military escort to cross the Tibetan border to negotiate a trade treaty.

“When efforts to begin negotiations failed,” the encyclopedia reports, “the British, under the command of Maj. Gen. James Macdonald, invaded the country and slaughtered some 600 Tibetans at Guru. Younghusband moved on to Chiang-tzu (Gyantze), where his second attempt to begin trade negotiations also failed. He then marched into Lhasa, the capital, with British troops and forced the conclusion of a trade treaty with the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s ruler. This action brought him a knighthood in 1904.”

British journalist Alan Winnington writes in his book “Tibet” that the treaty “made Tibet as far as possible a British sphere of influence.”+

Interesting stuff in that link. Obviously not to be wholly trusted or trusted to tell the whole story but it takes me at least a bit beyond being one of the few people who knows there was once a Tibetan kingdom or empire extending to the Bay of Bengal.

-----“When efforts to begin negotiations failed,” the encyclopedia reports, “the British, under the command of Maj. Gen. James Macdonald, invaded the country and slaughtered some 600 Tibetans at Guru.-----

Proves my point. 600 dead. Hardly a genocide.

Look, all through history among ALL PEOPLES, when a new order came to take over the old order, there was some degree of violence and fighting. The winning side had to MAKE AN EXAMPLE. Brits made an example. 600 dead was nothing by the standards of those days and I mean AMONG ALL PEOPLES.

I'm not saying it was a good thing. I'm saying it is necessary when one order seeks power over an old one.

Look at the Turkish coup attempt. They killed 100s of people, and more might have died if it had succeed. The purge might have gone the other way, with 10,000 of Erdogan folks sacked. It's like US purged the entire Baath party after invading Iraq.

Imperialism ALWAYS spilled some blood, and this was true of ALL empires through history.

I understand where you are coming from. I don't know enough about Chinese history to form an educated opinion, but from what I've seen on his numbers and writings on wars/massacres where Muslims are involved, he has been fairly objective about sources. Also, from what I've read on his site, he is open to constructive criticism and reviewing his sources, but I guess he gets lots of people yelling at him and calling him names (I can imagine). So if you approach it right, you may be able to sway him on a few numbers regarding China.

But he got called a 'wog' and got kicked off the train, like in the movie.

British feel bad about that, and Brits now allow immigration to UK to give the 'wogs' a second chance at admiring and emulating British ways. But the Brits act too apologetic now, and the 'wogs' now come mostly for raping teens and praying to Allah or listening to rap.

Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted.
But the Brits were pretty decent and accommodating to civilized folks. Remember that some British guy wrote Lost Horizon that idealized the Tibetans.

At the very least, the Brits respected one another. In contrast, Mao had 50 million of his countrymen killed.

Also, Brits acted ruthlessly when they needed to keep the order. Mao's Great Leap and Cultural Revolution were mad orgies of total lunacy.

“Brits did some great stuff in HK, Singapore, Malaysia, and etc.”

At ultimately who’s expense?

“And British Imperialism only replaced Mughal Imperialism in India.”

So, using your logic, if American imperialism in the Middle East replaces Russian imperialism there, there’s no difference.

“Indians resented the English but also admired them.”

Most, if not all, societies that are conquered have admiration of some aspects of those who are controlling them. It does not mean that they would prefer to be enslaved.

“Gandhi initially wanted to be like an English gentleman.”

Sources?

“Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted.”

You sound EXACTLY like a neo-con!

“But the Brits were pretty decent and accommodating to civilized folks.”

So long as those whom they conquered complied with their demands.

“At the very least, the Brits respected one another. In contrast, Mao had 50 million of his countrymen killed.”

[Certain commenters are obviously neither gainfully employed nor spend any of their time reading books in order to educate themselves. Therefore, comment threads are often dominated by the laziest and most ignorant participants.]

“Brits did some great stuff in HK, Singapore, Malaysia, and etc.”

"At ultimately who’s expense?"

You should ask, 'at whose benefit?' Many people in SE Asia benefited from British influence. Also, those peoples ruled by Brits tended to end up better than those ruled by the French or Spanish. Brits were better governors and managers, and this rubbed on the natives.

"So, using your logic, if American imperialism in the Middle East replaces Russian imperialism there, there’s no difference."

No no no. We must not fall into 'presentism'. We cannot judge the past by today's standards. In current times, we should all reject imperialism. The problems in the Middle East is due to neo-imperialism of Zionist-controlled US.
After the Cold War, there should have been a multi-polar world of mutuality and peace. But Anglo-American military-industrial complex and Zionist-Globalism got together and decided to spread American power as 'exceptional' and 'indispensable'. I hate those words now. So arrogant.

But imperialism was a common thing in the past among all peoples. I mean when the French arrived in Indochina, the Viet and Siamese imperialists were carving up Cambodia. China came to rule over Tibet and Uighurs thru their own imperialism.
Ottomans were empire-builders. We cannot judge the past by today's standards.

The Imperialist Way faded away. First big blow to imperialism was WWI. And then it was WWII and anti-colonial struggles. Ironically, there was a new kind of imperialism from US and USSR in the name of anti-imperialism during the Cold War. Soviets spread their tentacles in the name of aiding 'freedom fighters' against US imperialism, and Americans spread their tentacles in the name of aiding 'freedom fighters' against Soviet imperialism. As a result, millions died in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Anyway, end of Cold War could have led to peace. But the main blame must go to the US for trying to be THE ONLY SUPERPOWER. How nicer if US had decided to be the biggest great power among other great powers. But nope, it had to strut around as THE ONLY SUPERPOWER, and this led to a new bout of imperialism. It's much more dangerous now because there is no more leftist opposition to US imperialism and militarism. As the US military is seen as crusading force for Diversity and Homomania, the anti-war movement is totally dead. The Progs are now chanting USA USA at the sight of US warfare state.
Anti-war movement on the right was mostly rhetorical and genteel, not impassioned and furious. It was anti-war movement on the left that the warfare state feared. But hey, they now got so much diversity and homos and even trannies in the military. US-GAY, US-GAY, US-GAY!!! The 'new left' has learned to stop worrying and love the warfare state. Make War for 'Pride'.

So, even though Hillary and Obama are War Criminals, there is utter silence.
And even though Hillary's anti-Russian rhetoric is crazier than anything by McCarthy and HUAC, there is the 'new cold war' supported by progs cuz.... uh... Russia doesn't have homo 'pride' marches.

Surreal.

“Gandhi initially wanted to be like an English gentleman.”

"Sources?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y3tZpAdWTc

“Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted.”

"You sound EXACTLY like a neo-con!"

Wrong. The Brits were hypocritical buggers who could sometimes be gayishly unpleasant like the Tim Roth character in ROB ROY. But there was another side to British Imperialism that was genuinely well-meaning and did try to share civilization with other folks. Consider CHARIOTS OF FIRE. The Christian guy really meant well for his fellow man. And he died in China working as a missionary. He was a good fellow.

https://youtu.be/3vxlX5wyEQs?t=1m41s

The problem with neo-cons is they are narrow tribalists who ONLY CARE about Israel but pretend to care about 'human rights'. At least the Brits fought their own fights, and even the British upper classes got shot and wounded and killed. Neocons are weasels who make OTHERS to the fighting and only for Israeli and Jewish interests. Now, I don't mind if Jews only care about Jews. I don't much care much for rest of humanity either. But I resent how Neocons make the rest of us fight their fights as if it's in our interest when the ONLY interest being served is that of the Zionists.

Look. Nagisa Oshima was a leftist anti-imperialist, but in MERRY X-MAS MR. LAWRENCE, he shows how the British Imperialists were saner and more humane than the psycho-Japper nuts.

Regarding black African slaves, gee, I don't know, maybe they helped make northern shipowners and southern plantation owners wealthy with their labor. It appears to me that was an early form of "free stuff" for white Europeans.

I may read your link about Native Americans but I am not encouraged by the looseness of your intellectual operations as evidenced by your totally ignoring my big flag in the shape of “sic”. Are you used to kindergarten explanations? Must everything important to precision be not only flagged but spelled out in words of three letters?

The Federal Government doesn't print any money at all, the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) does. The Fed is not owned by the Federal Government, the names are similar to create the illusion that they are one and the same when in fact they are not.

The Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress, so, in a sense, the federal government does own the Fed. In the unlikely event the private market for U.S. debt disappeared, Congress could simply pass a law that requires the Fed to buy Treasury bonds directly from the U.S. Treasury, thereby staving off federal government bankruptcy and giving the government unlimited spending power.

"And of course any fairly run opinion poll in Tibet would show indeed that 5 per cent of native Tibetans agree that they live in the best of all possible worlds, love their Han neighbours and think the killings, starvings and exiles that were incidental to building the proud marching Tibet of the 21st century were a small price to pay – by others."

You are just spilling nonsense. What killing, starving you are talking about? There is indeed poll taken on the Tibetans in China and their level of Chinese nationalism exceeds that of the Han.

However I do understand why the narrative of 'Tibetans being oppressed' has such high currency among many in the world because it just feel so true. After all ethnic oppression on the vulnerable ethnic groups by the majority has been the historic experience on many parts of the world.

I might add that had ethnic oppression been part of the Han culture then the Han people would never have existed in the first place. The so called Han ethnic group are basically many ethnic groups that coalesced together through the long history of China. That's why there are close to 1.3 billions of them in this world. That's why Han people throughout China still speaks their own version of dialect that are very often mutually intelligible to each other. That is why if you look at the map of China today and look at the area where ethnic minorities reside they are all in remote hard to get area. Because had it not they would already have become Han themselves thousand years ago. American didn't invent this melting pot thing. Chinese do.

I am predisposed to go along with a tough minded view of China as I am to some extent with Israel. But there’s no getting away from it that China laid claim on and took over by force the once totally non Han territory of Tibet for strategic reasons to which the wishes of Tibetans were totally irrelevant. If the Tobetans had only had to put up with 1912 to 1940 or post 1978 Chinese government then I think I’ld have said it’s tough love but ordinary Tibetans deserve something better than their rule by Buddhist monks.

I am of course a realist when it comes to fantasies of any seriously pre-modern people being able to rule themselves in a modern state. Certainly not Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guinea struggles. Bhutan maybe?

I note what you say about the Han peoples and have beem impressed by my learning – presumably correctly – that the. one child policy was not enforced against minorities such as Uighurs. Since their numbers are nowhere near threatening it is of course rational and sensible as well as humane.

"I am of course a realist when it comes to fantasies of any seriously pre-modern people being able to rule themselves in a modern state. Certainly not Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guinea struggles. Bhutan maybe?'

No, not at all. Bhutan is nominally considered an independent country but in reality the Bhutanese is far from being their own master, India is. Shortly after India was created it signed a series of unequal treaties with its smaller neighbors putting them as the protectorate of India and one of them is Bhutan. By these treaties Bhutan cannot have its own independent foreign policy but has to be guided by India. And India strictly restricted what countries can have diplomatic relations with Bhutan. Today Bhutan does not have any diplomatic relations with any country of significance. It does not have any diplomatic relationships with the UK, US, France, Russia or China, its other neighbor. And India's control extend beyond Bhutan's external affairs. A couple decades ago Bhutan wants to do high end tourism that caters to the Western market but was told by India that it cannot accept foreign currencies other than the rupees. When Bhutan was thinking of building a highway in the southern part of its country it was rejected by India using some nefarious reasons. A few years ago Bhutan wants to open its country for hydroelectric dam development to international bidders and India insists that infrastructure projects in Bhutan is for the sole purview of Indian companies, and everybody knows that India sucks at infrastructure.

Today Bhutan tried not to be the next Sikkim, a country India invaded and annexed in 1975. This will be a high order for the Bhutanese because India has a strangle hold on the country. Bhutan has a population of about six hundred thousands and two hundred thousands of them are India personnel's of all kinds, many of them paramilitary.

There was an attempt by India to annex Bhutan in the early 1990s. Thanks God it didn't succeed that time. But this does not mean India won't tried again. I don't know about you but India's treatment of its neighbors is nothing shorting of disgusting. Ask the Nepalese what they think of India.

"But there’s no getting away from it that China laid claim on and took over by force the once totally non Han territory of Tibet for strategic reasons to which the wishes of Tibetans were totally irrelevant."

If you care about the Tibetans lobby the Indian government to get the hell out of South Tibet. South Tibet including Tawang, birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama and home to a four hundred years old Tibetan monastery was invaded and annexed by India in 1951, four years after India's creation and is occupied by India to this day. If you cannot located South Tibet on a map it is because it was renamed by India in 1987 to the so called 'Arunachal Pradesh'.

The British first came to China humbly and with respect. It only wanted to trade.

Being quite an ignoramus myself, I'd be delighted to read any supporting evidence for that statement.

If it's true, then it seems to be quite out of character for the British Empire. Of course, I could be very wrong, but I'm wondering what those benevolent and innocent traders intended to do with all the opium produced in India through slave labor.

“The British” is ambiguous. If the British government is meant then I suppose there could be reference to the embassy of I think the 1790s when the Emperor indicated that the trade goods proferred were of no interest and not needed by China so that, unless paying tribute they could p*** off.

Otherwise it was the East India Company stiil substantially privately controlled and making profits for shareholders. Of course they didn’t want a fight or the expense of governing if they could make a buck by trade.

I totally agree - everyone has skeletons in their closets - and usually, the bigger the empire, the bigger the skeletons - and the Brits had a big one and one of the most recent ones (people are still alive who remember the British Raj) so it's just a matter of time - who brings up Tamerlane much anymore?

But 'just wet their beak' was a bit hyperbolic so I responded.

That paper is indeed interesting on the generally light affects of opium:
"Opium smokers, in short, could moderate their use for personal and social reasons and even cease taking it altogether without help."

That sounds pretty mild and I don't doubt it was in the interests of the Chinese to inflate the issue to get opinion on their side, however, I'm one of those guys who likes to see people put their money where their mouth is. Once I see Britain open up public opium consumption and allow smoking dens, I'll be less skeptical. Otherwise, if we demand the right to ban it, after all the current medical knowledge about it because of our perceptions on detriments to society, then the Chinese (now and then) had a right to assert that - otherwise it's just hypocrisy, no?

Isn’t it time to end the blame game about the past?

I'm all for it - kindly pass the memo to the people constantly bringing up Muslim conquests.

Peace.

When I first went to India there were indeed lots of people who or whose parents remembered the British Raj and remembered it nostalgically and with respect and/or fondness. Their own politicians tended to enhance that effect! Now I sense that nationalistic education is giving those under about 50 and certainly under 30 a more theoretical view with a small selection of facts that paints the Raj as an excuse for current intractable problems. Rather childish, but human and understandable.

I've noticed this trend; and it also happens when you bring up the Delhi Sultanate or the Mughals. The Indian Muslims obviously like them, but from Sikhs and Hindus you get everything from regarding them as an integral part of Indian history to being hated Turko-Persian invaders. Usually depends on where you ask. I don't like this black-and-white version of history - it distorts facts and is just a bunch of cheer leading. The British were a mixed bag in India; they no doubt had a huge hand in its modernization, but there were also the policies that exacerbated terrible episodes like the famines - even the Irish know about that.

Anyway, I hope people are able to get past their assumptions when facts are presented and learn to be more nuanced in their approach. We can either shout at each other or learn how to prevent being involved in or supporting immoral policies.

The Pentagon rushes to protect “moderate jihadis” from Russians (legally invited by Sytrian government) and Syrians (citizens of Syria): https://www.rt.com/usa/356527-us-syria-jets-pentagon/
“The strike came close to US Special Forces operators, who were embedded with the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), comprised of the Kurdish YPG and local Arab militias.”

At the same time, “In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA:”

*Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted.
But the Brits were pretty decent and accommodating to civilized folks. Remember that some British guy wrote Lost Horizon that idealized the Tibetans.*

wow , the cheek of it all !
this jerk is saying the brits had to resort to extreme means to clear out the indigenuous in north america , diego garcia cuz those were 'savages' there !.
but those brit gents can be very 'accommodating' to 'civilised' folks like tibetans.

is this how they treat the 'civilised' tibetans ?

+At the turn of the century, in 1903, Britain decided that Tibet should come under its influence along with India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and China. At that time, Britain sent an invading force into Tibet.

Earlier British government expeditions had reported that Tibet was rich with natural resources and even said that "masses of gold were lying around in the rivers." They may have believed they had found another empire like the Incan empire in what is now Peru, where Spanish conquistadors stole a wealth of gold.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, in July 1903 Lord Curzon, viceroy of India, authorized Col. Francis Younghusband and a military escort to cross the Tibetan border to negotiate a trade treaty.

"When efforts to begin negotiations failed," the encyclopedia reports, "the British, under the command of Maj. Gen. James Macdonald, invaded the country and slaughtered some 600 Tibetans at Guru. Younghusband moved on to Chiang-tzu (Gyantze), where his second attempt to begin trade negotiations also failed. He then marched into Lhasa, the capital, with British troops and forced the conclusion of a trade treaty with the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s ruler. This action brought him a knighthood in 1904."

British journalist Alan Winnington writes in his book "Tibet" that the treaty "made Tibet as far as possible a British sphere of influence."+

http://www.workers.org/ww/tibet1204.html

careful there !
u'r digging a deeper hole for yourself each time u open foul mouth. !

Interesting stuff in that link. Obviously not to be wholly trusted or trusted to tell the whole story but it takes me at least a bit beyond being one of the few people who knows there was once a Tibetan kingdom or empire extending to the Bay of Bengal.

*Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted.
But the Brits were pretty decent and accommodating to civilized folks. Remember that some British guy wrote Lost Horizon that idealized the Tibetans.*

wow , the cheek of it all !
this jerk is saying the brits had to resort to extreme means to clear out the indigenuous in north america , diego garcia cuz those were 'savages' there !.
but those brit gents can be very 'accommodating' to 'civilised' folks like tibetans.

is this how they treat the 'civilised' tibetans ?

+At the turn of the century, in 1903, Britain decided that Tibet should come under its influence along with India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and China. At that time, Britain sent an invading force into Tibet.

Earlier British government expeditions had reported that Tibet was rich with natural resources and even said that "masses of gold were lying around in the rivers." They may have believed they had found another empire like the Incan empire in what is now Peru, where Spanish conquistadors stole a wealth of gold.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, in July 1903 Lord Curzon, viceroy of India, authorized Col. Francis Younghusband and a military escort to cross the Tibetan border to negotiate a trade treaty.

"When efforts to begin negotiations failed," the encyclopedia reports, "the British, under the command of Maj. Gen. James Macdonald, invaded the country and slaughtered some 600 Tibetans at Guru. Younghusband moved on to Chiang-tzu (Gyantze), where his second attempt to begin trade negotiations also failed. He then marched into Lhasa, the capital, with British troops and forced the conclusion of a trade treaty with the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s ruler. This action brought him a knighthood in 1904."

British journalist Alan Winnington writes in his book "Tibet" that the treaty "made Tibet as far as possible a British sphere of influence."+

http://www.workers.org/ww/tibet1204.html

careful there !
u'r digging a deeper hole for yourself each time u open foul mouth. !

—–“When efforts to begin negotiations failed,” the encyclopedia reports, “the British, under the command of Maj. Gen. James Macdonald, invaded the country and slaughtered some 600 Tibetans at Guru.—–

Proves my point. 600 dead. Hardly a genocide.

Look, all through history among ALL PEOPLES, when a new order came to take over the old order, there was some degree of violence and fighting. The winning side had to MAKE AN EXAMPLE. Brits made an example. 600 dead was nothing by the standards of those days and I mean AMONG ALL PEOPLES.

I’m not saying it was a good thing. I’m saying it is necessary when one order seeks power over an old one.

Look at the Turkish coup attempt. They killed 100s of people, and more might have died if it had succeed. The purge might have gone the other way, with 10,000 of Erdogan folks sacked. It’s like US purged the entire Baath party after invading Iraq.

Imperialism ALWAYS spilled some blood, and this was true of ALL empires through history.

So, using your logic, if American imperialism in the Middle East replaces Russian imperialism there, there's no difference.

"Indians resented the English but also admired them."

Most, if not all, societies that are conquered have admiration of some aspects of those who are controlling them. It does not mean that they would prefer to be enslaved.

"Gandhi initially wanted to be like an English gentleman."

Sources?

"Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted."

You sound EXACTLY like a neo-con!

"But the Brits were pretty decent and accommodating to civilized folks."

So long as those whom they conquered complied with their demands.

"At the very least, the Brits respected one another. In contrast, Mao had 50 million of his countrymen killed."

European imperialists easily doubled that amount.

[Certain commenters are obviously neither gainfully employed nor spend any of their time reading books in order to educate themselves. Therefore, comment threads are often dominated by the laziest and most ignorant participants.]

“Brits did some great stuff in HK, Singapore, Malaysia, and etc.”

“At ultimately who’s expense?”

You should ask, ‘at whose benefit?’ Many people in SE Asia benefited from British influence. Also, those peoples ruled by Brits tended to end up better than those ruled by the French or Spanish. Brits were better governors and managers, and this rubbed on the natives.

“So, using your logic, if American imperialism in the Middle East replaces Russian imperialism there, there’s no difference.”

No no no. We must not fall into ‘presentism’. We cannot judge the past by today’s standards. In current times, we should all reject imperialism. The problems in the Middle East is due to neo-imperialism of Zionist-controlled US.
After the Cold War, there should have been a multi-polar world of mutuality and peace. But Anglo-American military-industrial complex and Zionist-Globalism got together and decided to spread American power as ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’. I hate those words now. So arrogant.

But imperialism was a common thing in the past among all peoples. I mean when the French arrived in Indochina, the Viet and Siamese imperialists were carving up Cambodia. China came to rule over Tibet and Uighurs thru their own imperialism.
Ottomans were empire-builders. We cannot judge the past by today’s standards.

The Imperialist Way faded away. First big blow to imperialism was WWI. And then it was WWII and anti-colonial struggles. Ironically, there was a new kind of imperialism from US and USSR in the name of anti-imperialism during the Cold War. Soviets spread their tentacles in the name of aiding ‘freedom fighters’ against US imperialism, and Americans spread their tentacles in the name of aiding ‘freedom fighters’ against Soviet imperialism. As a result, millions died in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Anyway, end of Cold War could have led to peace. But the main blame must go to the US for trying to be THE ONLY SUPERPOWER. How nicer if US had decided to be the biggest great power among other great powers. But nope, it had to strut around as THE ONLY SUPERPOWER, and this led to a new bout of imperialism. It’s much more dangerous now because there is no more leftist opposition to US imperialism and militarism. As the US military is seen as crusading force for Diversity and Homomania, the anti-war movement is totally dead. The Progs are now chanting USA USA at the sight of US warfare state.
Anti-war movement on the right was mostly rhetorical and genteel, not impassioned and furious. It was anti-war movement on the left that the warfare state feared. But hey, they now got so much diversity and homos and even trannies in the military. US-GAY, US-GAY, US-GAY!!! The ‘new left’ has learned to stop worrying and love the warfare state. Make War for ‘Pride’.

So, even though Hillary and Obama are War Criminals, there is utter silence.
And even though Hillary’s anti-Russian rhetoric is crazier than anything by McCarthy and HUAC, there is the ‘new cold war’ supported by progs cuz…. uh… Russia doesn’t have homo ‘pride’ marches.

Surreal.

“Gandhi initially wanted to be like an English gentleman.”

“Sources?”

“Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted.”

“You sound EXACTLY like a neo-con!”

Wrong. The Brits were hypocritical buggers who could sometimes be gayishly unpleasant like the Tim Roth character in ROB ROY. But there was another side to British Imperialism that was genuinely well-meaning and did try to share civilization with other folks. Consider CHARIOTS OF FIRE. The Christian guy really meant well for his fellow man. And he died in China working as a missionary. He was a good fellow.

The problem with neo-cons is they are narrow tribalists who ONLY CARE about Israel but pretend to care about ‘human rights’. At least the Brits fought their own fights, and even the British upper classes got shot and wounded and killed. Neocons are weasels who make OTHERS to the fighting and only for Israeli and Jewish interests. Now, I don’t mind if Jews only care about Jews. I don’t much care much for rest of humanity either. But I resent how Neocons make the rest of us fight their fights as if it’s in our interest when the ONLY interest being served is that of the Zionists.

Look. Nagisa Oshima was a leftist anti-imperialist, but in MERRY X-MAS MR. LAWRENCE, he shows how the British Imperialists were saner and more humane than the psycho-Japper nuts.

The British first came to China humbly and with respect. It only wanted to trade.

Being quite an ignoramus myself, I'd be delighted to read any supporting evidence for that statement.

If it's true, then it seems to be quite out of character for the British Empire. Of course, I could be very wrong, but I'm wondering what those benevolent and innocent traders intended to do with all the opium produced in India through slave labor.

“Being quite an ignoramus myself, I’d be delighted to read any supporting evidence for that statement.”

“If it’s true, then it seems to be quite out of character for the British Empire. Of course, I could be very wrong, but I’m wondering what those benevolent and innocent traders intended to do with all the opium produced in India through slave labor.”

There was no single policy for all peoples. All empires adapted to different needs and challenges. I mean it made no sense for Brits to treat Australian Aborigines, Egyptians, Chinese, Hindus, Arabs, black African tribesmen, and etc all the same. Depending on the power, development, and culture of different peoples, the British modulated their approach.

Needless to say, Brits were most successful with taking over sparsely populated lands and populating them with British men AND BRITISH WOMEN. Women were very important in the success of British colonization cuz they produced more white kids.
Spanish and Portuguese imperialism, in contrast, was mostly male-dominated, so the Hispanic males ended up mixing races with native women, and the product was the mestizo, an ambiguous being of both conquistador and conquered blood.

Brits did best with mostly empty lands settled by British men AND WOMENFOLK. United Stated, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Diversity is going to ruin this great achievement. It’s so tragic. Diversity even made London into Afro-Muslimland. I mean WTF.

It’s like the Russians were successful in taking Siberia cuz it’s mostly vast empty land.
And Chinese were able to grab Tibet and Uighurland cuz they had low population density of backward folks. If Han Chinese wanna keep them, they have to flood them with Chinese men AND WOMENFOLK who will have lots of kibblers.

British had a different approach to savage folks who were numerous enough but not civilized. Take black Africans. Brits could rule over them, but long term prospects were problematic since Brits couldn’t produce enough whites in such areas to become the majority.
As for India and parts of SE Asia and Middle East, Brits did come up high civilization(relatively speaking), and Brits treated such people with some degree of respect even as they could be overbearing. It’s like the scene in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA where the British officer played by Anthony Quayle show respect to King Feisel.

Now, China was a different matter altogether. Because of its sheer size, the Brits over-estimated its power. It had great respect for Cathay as giant power worthy of respect. So, Brits figure they should just do business and forget about trying to take over China. But when Brits found out that the China had become the sick man of Asia, they got ready to strike. But even after the won the Opium Wars, Brits mostly asked for concessions than outright conquest. Brits wanted to control the ports for increased trade. And even though British clubs kept out the Chiners like Wasp country clubs kept out Jews, they were more than willing to teach the Brits lots of stuff. Watch NOBLE HOUSE. It’s got some good stuff on how the Brits operated.
Brits could be ruthless and conniving. But also honorable and trustworthy. You had to know how to read them.

Here it is, the 21st century, and we still have apologists for the British empire (and probably also the French, Russian , American and who knows what other ones as well)!

Thanks for taking the time to compose a respectful response, but c'mon, when ya start out with this eye-roller, "There was no single policy for all peoples. All empires adapted to different needs and challenges" how could you expect me to read any further?

If yer gonna take the time to respond, tell us something we wouldn't otherwise know, please.

I am predisposed to go along with a tough minded view of China as I am to some extent with Israel. But there's no getting away from it that China laid claim on and took over by force the once totally non Han territory of Tibet for strategic reasons to which the wishes of Tibetans were totally irrelevant. If the Tobetans had only had to put up with 1912 to 1940 or post 1978 Chinese government then I think I'ld have said it's tough love but ordinary Tibetans deserve something better than their rule by Buddhist monks.

I am of course a realist when it comes to fantasies of any seriously pre-modern people being able to rule themselves in a modern state. Certainly not Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guinea struggles. Bhutan maybe?

I note what you say about the Han peoples and have beem impressed by my learning - presumably correctly - that the. one child policy was not enforced against minorities such as Uighurs. Since their numbers are nowhere near threatening it is of course rational and sensible as well as humane.

“I am of course a realist when it comes to fantasies of any seriously pre-modern people being able to rule themselves in a modern state. Certainly not Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guinea struggles. Bhutan maybe?’

No, not at all. Bhutan is nominally considered an independent country but in reality the Bhutanese is far from being their own master, India is. Shortly after India was created it signed a series of unequal treaties with its smaller neighbors putting them as the protectorate of India and one of them is Bhutan. By these treaties Bhutan cannot have its own independent foreign policy but has to be guided by India. And India strictly restricted what countries can have diplomatic relations with Bhutan. Today Bhutan does not have any diplomatic relations with any country of significance. It does not have any diplomatic relationships with the UK, US, France, Russia or China, its other neighbor. And India’s control extend beyond Bhutan’s external affairs. A couple decades ago Bhutan wants to do high end tourism that caters to the Western market but was told by India that it cannot accept foreign currencies other than the rupees. When Bhutan was thinking of building a highway in the southern part of its country it was rejected by India using some nefarious reasons. A few years ago Bhutan wants to open its country for hydroelectric dam development to international bidders and India insists that infrastructure projects in Bhutan is for the sole purview of Indian companies, and everybody knows that India sucks at infrastructure.

Today Bhutan tried not to be the next Sikkim, a country India invaded and annexed in 1975. This will be a high order for the Bhutanese because India has a strangle hold on the country. Bhutan has a population of about six hundred thousands and two hundred thousands of them are India personnel’s of all kinds, many of them paramilitary.

There was an attempt by India to annex Bhutan in the early 1990s. Thanks God it didn’t succeed that time. But this does not mean India won’t tried again. I don’t know about you but India’s treatment of its neighbors is nothing shorting of disgusting. Ask the Nepalese what they think of India.

I see that the current minimum fee for Bhutan ($250 or $200 in winter) is payable in dollars - it does include accommodation and a guide. But Indian passport holders are exempt.

"All tourists (excluding Indian, Bangladeshi and Maldivian passport holders) who wish to travel to Bhutan require a visa and must book their holiday through a Bhutanese tour operator or one of their international partners. "

Interesting about Bhutan, though, as Anonymous Nephew says, they do seem to be attracting high end tourism. A friend who worked in New York took his family there on holiday a few years ago and they certainly weren't backpackers.

I haven't been to Nepal for years but remember that amongst the vast number of bearers etc (about 6 staff for each paying customer) there were half a dozen Brahmins who ate completely apart from the others. The somewhat homicidal/fratricidal Royal Family were/are Indian rather than Tibetan related Nepalese are they not?

I think there are still lots of Ghurkas serving in the Indian Army though, admittedly, about their fourth choice of service for reasons of pay and conditions.

When I first went to India there were indeed lots of people who or whose parents remembered the British Raj and remembered it nostalgically and with respect and/or fondness. Their own politicians tended to enhance that effect! Now I sense that nationalistic education is giving those under about 50 and certainly under 30 a more theoretical view with a small selection of facts that paints the Raj as an excuse for current intractable problems. Rather childish, but human and understandable.

Dear WoO,

I’ve noticed this trend; and it also happens when you bring up the Delhi Sultanate or the Mughals. The Indian Muslims obviously like them, but from Sikhs and Hindus you get everything from regarding them as an integral part of Indian history to being hated Turko-Persian invaders. Usually depends on where you ask. I don’t like this black-and-white version of history – it distorts facts and is just a bunch of cheer leading. The British were a mixed bag in India; they no doubt had a huge hand in its modernization, but there were also the policies that exacerbated terrible episodes like the famines – even the Irish know about that.

Anyway, I hope people are able to get past their assumptions when facts are presented and learn to be more nuanced in their approach. We can either shout at each other or learn how to prevent being involved in or supporting immoral policies.

Numbers count so much. A sample relevant to aspects of this thread. The Irish Famine when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom was partly/largely a result of the population explosion amongst illiterate Irish peasants who had come to depend on the potato (introduced from the Americas by ???). The Brits hadn't even conceived an adequate welfare state for the multiplying English then.

BTW I visited Mysore (Kannada: Mysuru) recently and was astonished to find that the Muslim sultanate of Tipu was only 15 kilometres away! It was only the Muslim ruler that Sir Arthur Wellesley made his name against wasn't it?

I am predisposed to go along with a tough minded view of China as I am to some extent with Israel. But there's no getting away from it that China laid claim on and took over by force the once totally non Han territory of Tibet for strategic reasons to which the wishes of Tibetans were totally irrelevant. If the Tobetans had only had to put up with 1912 to 1940 or post 1978 Chinese government then I think I'ld have said it's tough love but ordinary Tibetans deserve something better than their rule by Buddhist monks.

I am of course a realist when it comes to fantasies of any seriously pre-modern people being able to rule themselves in a modern state. Certainly not Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guinea struggles. Bhutan maybe?

I note what you say about the Han peoples and have beem impressed by my learning - presumably correctly - that the. one child policy was not enforced against minorities such as Uighurs. Since their numbers are nowhere near threatening it is of course rational and sensible as well as humane.

“But there’s no getting away from it that China laid claim on and took over by force the once totally non Han territory of Tibet for strategic reasons to which the wishes of Tibetans were totally irrelevant.”

If you care about the Tibetans lobby the Indian government to get the hell out of South Tibet. South Tibet including Tawang, birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama and home to a four hundred years old Tibetan monastery was invaded and annexed by India in 1951, four years after India’s creation and is occupied by India to this day. If you cannot located South Tibet on a map it is because it was renamed by India in 1987 to the so called ‘Arunachal Pradesh’.

Thanks. As indicated to Denk (who could learn some old fashioned East Asian civility - OK always a minority specialty as in the land of the British soccer hoolĺigan..) I have just learned something even from his slightly sus link and now I am reminded of India's capacity for obtuseness and worse though rights and wrongs about the borders of India and China don't leap off the page as obvious.

By the way don't you think it is time for most countries and people to drop, as undignified, complaints about the past beyond 100 years plus or minus a few. Should i maintain a chip on my shoulder about the way my Irish and English Catholuc forbears became treated as criminals and transported to a vonvict

Continued - sorry about the unedited messes .... transported to a convict colony from which they never returned? Should Indians be complaining today about the mercantile and later governmental imperialists who started the disruption of extreme caste discrimination, largely overthrew Muslim rule of Hindus and introduced education in the most useful (by far) language (so far)? No of course sensible ones trade on English language skills, turn old English gentlemen's clubs into facilities for Indian men and women, rejoice in beating the rest of the old empire at cricket and utter a bit of recently fashionable cant, with no great asperity, about how rich India was when the British arrived. (I haven't tried to do some complicated calculation involving birth and death rates before and after the beginnings of globalisation and the industrial revolution or how India's previous wealth was used but it seems to me that, if India wasn't actually lucky that it was the British who became the dominant predators/organisers on the subcontinent in pre birth control, pre League of Nations, days then it still makes sense to consider that multiplying people post Malthus is a hugely more important phenomenon than anything else. Those interested in allegedly dangerous anthrogenic global warming btw may already be aware of a roughly 60 year cycle in disastrous Indian famines).

As for China's "century of humiliation"! Maybe a good motivator for something but the prompting to read about the Taiping Rebellion has served as a reminder that British misbehaviour in the 19th. Century was barely a pimple on the arse of the Han people's collective that mixed long tradition with gross disunity and, at the same time perhaps most fatally, gross conformity and deference to elders.

“[Certain commenters are obviously neither gainfully employed nor spend any of their time reading books in order to educate themselves. Therefore, comment threads are often dominated by the laziest and most ignorant participants.]”

Indeed, Anonymny fits this description.

“You should ask, ‘at whose benefit?’ Many people in SE Asia benefited from British influence. Also, those peoples ruled by Brits tended to end up better than those ruled by the French or Spanish.”

There is no dispute that British influence benefitted the people of SE Asia in certain matters. However, where it most counts–self-determination and individual sovereignty–people there were clearly overwhelmed by “western benevolence”. So, again, using your own logic, Jewish neo-cons are justified in past and future intervention.

Are you a Jew? And a neo-con to boot?

“Brits were better governors and managers, and this rubbed on the natives.”

Brits imposed their system upon the natives. Of course Brits who were familiar with the ins and outs of their own form of government would “manage” better. However, the natives had their own ways to rule. Is it not in their best interest to govern without imposition from outside forces?

“No no no. We must not fall into ‘presentism’. We cannot judge the past by today’s standards. In current times, we should all reject imperialism.”

Rejection of imperialism of the past and of the present because there are common threads for its causes and applications. Otherwise, you are completely hypocritical.

“The problems in the Middle East is due to neo-imperialism of Zionist-controlled US.”

Corrected for accuracy –> The problems in the Middle East is in large part due to imperialist actions taken by Western European nations.

“But Anglo-American military-industrial complex and Zionist-Globalism got together and decided to spread American power as ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’. I hate those words now. So arrogant.”

Yet you arrogantly insist that those same actions by Europeans ought to be praised and respected.

“But imperialism was a common thing in the past among all peoples. I mean when the French arrived in Indochina, the Viet and Siamese imperialists were carving up Cambodia. China came to rule over Tibet and Uighurs thru their own imperialism. Ottomans were empire-builders. We cannot judge the past by today’s standards.”

You just stated imperialism was a “common thing”. Those similarities are timeless. The
remain constant. Therefore, one is able to reasonably judge.

“But nope, it had to strut around as THE ONLY SUPERPOWER, and this led to a new bout of imperialism.”

That is what nations have historically undertaken. The Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, the British Empire…all share the same attitude and courses of action in extending and maintaining their dominance. Yet, somehow, when the United States engaged in EXACTLY the same way, it is blamed for fomenting global discord.

““Gandhi initially wanted to be like an English gentleman….Sources” I am not looking for a movie clip from an Oscar winner. How about Ghandi’s own words from first-hand sources claiming he sought to be an “English gentlemen”.

“But there was another side to British Imperialism that was genuinely well-meaning and did try to share civilization with other folks.”

As is the genuine well-meaning plans of neo-cons to spread “American exceptionalism”. There is no observable difference. Yet, to you, one is more “noble” than the other. How strange.

Yet, somehow, when the United States engaged in EXACTLY the same way, it is blamed for fomenting global discord.

One could make the case, as I've done before, that for pre-modern nations/empires, invading each other's territory was the norm - everyone did it; Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Mayans, Javanese, Normans, etc. the only question was how bloody and how far-reaching and for what purpose (economic, religious, ethnic, some pretty woman, etc.). That was the world then; basically one of those huge winner-take-all wrestling matches with like 20 guys in the ring (ah, good old Rowdy Roddy Piper - we miss you and your kilt - you too, Nikolai Volkoff - good times, good times). Or a game of Risk.

But, ever since the last match where everybody burned entire cities to the ground and killed people like ants - we all agreed to halt and desist and conduct ourselves by laws - not the law of the jungle. The US is now a signatory and helped draft those very conventions and treaties. Thus its non-compliance (and that of others) is treacherous and absolutely immoral by its own prior admission.

“[Certain commenters are obviously neither gainfully employed nor spend any of their time reading books in order to educate themselves. Therefore, comment threads are often dominated by the laziest and most ignorant participants.]”

Indeed, Anonymny fits this description.

“You should ask, ‘at whose benefit?’ Many people in SE Asia benefited from British influence. Also, those peoples ruled by Brits tended to end up better than those ruled by the French or Spanish.”

There is no dispute that British influence benefitted the people of SE Asia in certain matters. However, where it most counts--self-determination and individual sovereignty--people there were clearly overwhelmed by “western benevolence”. So, again, using your own logic, Jewish neo-cons are justified in past and future intervention.

Are you a Jew? And a neo-con to boot?

“Brits were better governors and managers, and this rubbed on the natives.”

Brits imposed their system upon the natives. Of course Brits who were familiar with the ins and outs of their own form of government would “manage” better. However, the natives had their own ways to rule. Is it not in their best interest to govern without imposition from outside forces?

“No no no. We must not fall into ‘presentism’. We cannot judge the past by today’s standards. In current times, we should all reject imperialism.”

Rejection of imperialism of the past and of the present because there are common threads for its causes and applications. Otherwise, you are completely hypocritical.

“The problems in the Middle East is due to neo-imperialism of Zionist-controlled US.”

Corrected for accuracy --> The problems in the Middle East is in large part due to imperialist actions taken by Western European nations.

“But Anglo-American military-industrial complex and Zionist-Globalism got together and decided to spread American power as ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’. I hate those words now. So arrogant.”

Yet you arrogantly insist that those same actions by Europeans ought to be praised and respected.

“But imperialism was a common thing in the past among all peoples. I mean when the French arrived in Indochina, the Viet and Siamese imperialists were carving up Cambodia. China came to rule over Tibet and Uighurs thru their own imperialism. Ottomans were empire-builders. We cannot judge the past by today’s standards.”

You just stated imperialism was a “common thing”. Those similarities are timeless. The
remain constant. Therefore, one is able to reasonably judge.

“But nope, it had to strut around as THE ONLY SUPERPOWER, and this led to a new bout of imperialism.”

That is what nations have historically undertaken. The Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, the British Empire...all share the same attitude and courses of action in extending and maintaining their dominance. Yet, somehow, when the United States engaged in EXACTLY the same way, it is blamed for fomenting global discord.

““Gandhi initially wanted to be like an English gentleman....Sources” I am not looking for a movie clip from an Oscar winner. How about Ghandi’s own words from first-hand sources claiming he sought to be an “English gentlemen”.

“But there was another side to British Imperialism that was genuinely well-meaning and did try to share civilization with other folks.”

As is the genuine well-meaning plans of neo-cons to spread “American exceptionalism”. There is no observable difference. Yet, to you, one is more “noble” than the other. How strange.

Hey Corvinus,

Yet, somehow, when the United States engaged in EXACTLY the same way, it is blamed for fomenting global discord.

One could make the case, as I’ve done before, that for pre-modern nations/empires, invading each other’s territory was the norm – everyone did it; Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Mayans, Javanese, Normans, etc. the only question was how bloody and how far-reaching and for what purpose (economic, religious, ethnic, some pretty woman, etc.). That was the world then; basically one of those huge winner-take-all wrestling matches with like 20 guys in the ring (ah, good old Rowdy Roddy Piper – we miss you and your kilt – you too, Nikolai Volkoff – good times, good times). Or a game of Risk.

But, ever since the last match where everybody burned entire cities to the ground and killed people like ants – we all agreed to halt and desist and conduct ourselves by laws – not the law of the jungle. The US is now a signatory and helped draft those very conventions and treaties. Thus its non-compliance (and that of others) is treacherous and absolutely immoral by its own prior admission.

With that wilderness that they could call there own, with the prospect of improving their lot in life, which is the very essence of possibilities and opportunities.

But people today are not coming for the wilderness or land. If they were, they could easily head to Mexico, or remain in Mexico, whatever the case might be.

The reason people are coming here is because of the opportunity that has been created and passed down by those who saw wilderness and planted the seeds of what we have today.

Further, much of the wilderness our forefathers tackled was of a much harsher variety than that found in many other areas of the New World. On paper they should have had a much harder time, yet they established something that has grown into the most opportunity-rich nation on earth. While other New World nations languish and see their citizens give up and head North.

And using one example, is there any place comparable to the Boston and New England area when it comes to the number and quality of institutions of higher education? A little over 400 years ago the place was a wilderness. Within a couple hundred years they had established several prominent schools. I can't think of anywhere else so many top notch schools are so closely clustered. Any one have an example?

But the point is today's immigrants can come to Boston and have access to the finest educational institutions in the world, courtesy in large part of those who hacked out a civilization from the wilderness four centuries ago.

Nicely put especially ‘much of the wilderness our forefathers tackled was of a much harsher variety than that found in many other areas of the New World. On paper they should have had a much harder time‘. I expect most people never give the early years of colonial America a thought but the truth is so remarkable one has to wonder at the determination of the people back then.

Indeed. I've criss-crossed the US in every direction, many times (those were the days - on tour- sigh ;0) and never failed to wonder what manner of men (and women) crossed this land into the unknown in covered wagons.

Likewise, to go out into the Australian wilderness (bush) and you get a sense of how hard it must have been for the pioneers. One can't help coming away with greater respect for the aborigines also who survived for millennia in a landscape that frequently kills europeans in just a few days when their cars break down.

Regarding black African slaves, gee, I don't know, maybe they helped make northern shipowners and southern plantation owners wealthy with their labor. It appears to me that was an early form of "free stuff" for white Europeans.

“an early form of “free stuff” for white Europeans”

This idea that Europeans took stuff from other people and somehow owe these countries a debt misunderstands the nature of development. Europeans created conditions for the generation of surplus and from that surplus came development. Everybody got ‘free stuff’ but some got more than others. Everyone benefited. And most people suffered for that benefit – development. The history of European peoples is one of slavery (as well as slaving) and poverty and cruelty (as well as riches and luxury).

"This idea that Europeans took stuff from other people and somehow owe these countries a debt misunderstands the nature of development. Europeans created conditions for the generation of surplus and from that surplus came development. Everybody got ‘free stuff’ but some got more than others. Everyone benefited. And most people suffered for that benefit – development. The history of European peoples is one of slavery (as well as slaving) and poverty and cruelty (as well as riches and luxury)."

It is very easy to say how Europeans can take all of the credit for spreading the world with their ideologies and technologies in the name of "development" when the world was not necessarily desiring or needing to be continually interfered with their own ways of life through invasion and domination. Yes, non-Europeans benefitted, but ultimately at their expense.

The AH Empire was bigger in land size and had 4 times the population of Prussia.
But Prussia prevailed. Why? AH Empire's size and diversity were its undoing. Prussia was smaller in population, but it was all German, and as such, tightly bound together.
In contrast, AH Empire's size in people and land were huge, but there was little unity. German-Austrians made up only 1/4 of its population. The ruling German-Austrians had difficult time keeping all the subject peoples together. It tried to convince the subject peoples that they were not subjects, but there was a lot of resentment among the non-Austrians.

So, even though by the numbers, the AH empire seemed far more formidable, the Prussians won the war because they were homogeneous and united and were interested mainly in uniting Germans and leaving non-Germans out.

From this, white folks can learn a lesson. As non-white numbers swell, it is both a blessing and a curse to the white Liberals. They will become like the Austrian elites trying to hold together a vast diverse population of subject peoples. Blacks, Hispanics, and many immigrant groups are essentially subject peoples of Jewish and White Liberal Globalist elites. As time passes, the Liberal coalition will become majority non-white if it aint already. It will be Jewish/white ruling class over non-whites who remain mired in lower income.

In contrast, white conservatives can become like Prussia. They may be smaller in number than the Diversity Empire, but they are united by race, identity, history, and destiny. That is the source of strength, a new Prussianism.

Also, it's about time we got rid of this notion of 'America'. It has a divisive effect between Europeans and white 'Americans'. The idea of 'Americans' suggests that white 'Americans' have more in common with black 'Americans', yellow 'Americans', and brown 'Americans' than with white Europeans. In fact, white 'Americans' have more in common with white Europeans. To accentuate this fact, we should get rid of the term 'Americans'.
White 'Americans' should refer to themselves as Neo-Europeans. Indeed, white America should be called Neo-Europe. There is Old Europe(or Original Europe) and New Europe(that is America). Or First Europe and Second Europe.
America was not a new beginning but an extension of European Civilization.
Indeed, the first settlers of America understood this. They called their settlement 'New England'. And they called a city 'New York'. There was a sense of continuity with prota-Europe or First Europe.

When white 'Americans' refer to themselves as Second Europeans or Neo-Europeans, they will closer to prota-Europeans than with Muslim-Americans, Black-Americans, and etc.

Reject this ridiculous term called 'America'.

“Maybe White Folks should look to German history to forge a New Order.”

“The year 1941 will be, I am convinced, the historical year of a great European New Order.”
-Adolf Hitler, Berlin Sportpalast

That didn’t work out very well (1945).

“…white conservatives can become like Prussia…they are united by race, identity, history and destiny. That is the source of strength, a new Prussianism.”

That didn’t work out well either (1918).

“Also, it’s about time we got rid of this notion of ‘America’.”

Right. How about Prussia-Amerika, or Prussmerika for short?

We can bring back the stechschritt (goose step) and pickelhaube (especially the helmets with ridiculous cast birds and horsehair plumes). To say nothing of military-style uniforms for all. Everyone from restroom attendants, janitors and ditch-diggers to army generals (with lots and lots of medals). Then, of course, we can enact universal conscription to help the volk get on the same page. Add any threat and presto, a unifying war with bloodletting that clarifies the mind.

There’s nothing new about peddling ethno-chauvinism. Toss in fear mongering , a dash of racism, and “defense measures” (aggressive war) and you can wake up with your world in ashes.

Germans migrated to America despite “race, identity, history and destiny.” Opportunity may have had something to do with it, as well as escaping conscription. It wasn’t to be reunited with the long-lost Volk.

LOL! Good points. I don't know where all this idea about a United White People comes from. Sure they have similarities, but my White Swedish in-laws (in Sweden) always talk bad about the Germans (and Danes to a certain degree) - they are not welcome there by many. Likewise, ask Irish about English or ask Germans if they think Greeks and Spaniards are hard working upstanding people. Wasn't the Yugoslav Civil War basically a three-way White-on-White pile-on?

I can possibly see it in America, but continental Europe - good luck!

I would think the fact that so many local peoples want to exit the EU would be an indication that White-unity is an afterthought to a bunch of other priorities.

"Being quite an ignoramus myself, I’d be delighted to read any supporting evidence for that statement."

https://youtu.be/LQfmv9fIfu0?t=40m51s

"If it’s true, then it seems to be quite out of character for the British Empire. Of course, I could be very wrong, but I’m wondering what those benevolent and innocent traders intended to do with all the opium produced in India through slave labor."

There was no single policy for all peoples. All empires adapted to different needs and challenges. I mean it made no sense for Brits to treat Australian Aborigines, Egyptians, Chinese, Hindus, Arabs, black African tribesmen, and etc all the same. Depending on the power, development, and culture of different peoples, the British modulated their approach.

Needless to say, Brits were most successful with taking over sparsely populated lands and populating them with British men AND BRITISH WOMEN. Women were very important in the success of British colonization cuz they produced more white kids.
Spanish and Portuguese imperialism, in contrast, was mostly male-dominated, so the Hispanic males ended up mixing races with native women, and the product was the mestizo, an ambiguous being of both conquistador and conquered blood.

Brits did best with mostly empty lands settled by British men AND WOMENFOLK. United Stated, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Diversity is going to ruin this great achievement. It's so tragic. Diversity even made London into Afro-Muslimland. I mean WTF.

It's like the Russians were successful in taking Siberia cuz it's mostly vast empty land.
And Chinese were able to grab Tibet and Uighurland cuz they had low population density of backward folks. If Han Chinese wanna keep them, they have to flood them with Chinese men AND WOMENFOLK who will have lots of kibblers.

British had a different approach to savage folks who were numerous enough but not civilized. Take black Africans. Brits could rule over them, but long term prospects were problematic since Brits couldn't produce enough whites in such areas to become the majority.
As for India and parts of SE Asia and Middle East, Brits did come up high civilization(relatively speaking), and Brits treated such people with some degree of respect even as they could be overbearing. It's like the scene in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA where the British officer played by Anthony Quayle show respect to King Feisel.

Now, China was a different matter altogether. Because of its sheer size, the Brits over-estimated its power. It had great respect for Cathay as giant power worthy of respect. So, Brits figure they should just do business and forget about trying to take over China. But when Brits found out that the China had become the sick man of Asia, they got ready to strike. But even after the won the Opium Wars, Brits mostly asked for concessions than outright conquest. Brits wanted to control the ports for increased trade. And even though British clubs kept out the Chiners like Wasp country clubs kept out Jews, they were more than willing to teach the Brits lots of stuff. Watch NOBLE HOUSE. It's got some good stuff on how the Brits operated.
Brits could be ruthless and conniving. But also honorable and trustworthy. You had to know how to read them.

https://youtu.be/QaE9vv5Yhcg?t=37s

“Brits did best with mostly empty lands settled by British men AND WOMENFOLK. United Stated, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Diversity is going to ruin this great achievement. It’s so tragic.”

"But there’s no getting away from it that China laid claim on and took over by force the once totally non Han territory of Tibet for strategic reasons to which the wishes of Tibetans were totally irrelevant."

If you care about the Tibetans lobby the Indian government to get the hell out of South Tibet. South Tibet including Tawang, birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama and home to a four hundred years old Tibetan monastery was invaded and annexed by India in 1951, four years after India's creation and is occupied by India to this day. If you cannot located South Tibet on a map it is because it was renamed by India in 1987 to the so called 'Arunachal Pradesh'.

Thanks. As indicated to Denk (who could learn some old fashioned East Asian civility – OK always a minority specialty as in the land of the British soccer hoolĺigan..) I have just learned something even from his slightly sus link and now I am reminded of India’s capacity for obtuseness and worse though rights and wrongs about the borders of India and China don’t leap off the page as obvious.

By the way don’t you think it is time for most countries and people to drop, as undignified, complaints about the past beyond 100 years plus or minus a few. Should i maintain a chip on my shoulder about the way my Irish and English Catholuc forbears became treated as criminals and transported to a vonvict

"Being quite an ignoramus myself, I’d be delighted to read any supporting evidence for that statement."

https://youtu.be/LQfmv9fIfu0?t=40m51s

"If it’s true, then it seems to be quite out of character for the British Empire. Of course, I could be very wrong, but I’m wondering what those benevolent and innocent traders intended to do with all the opium produced in India through slave labor."

There was no single policy for all peoples. All empires adapted to different needs and challenges. I mean it made no sense for Brits to treat Australian Aborigines, Egyptians, Chinese, Hindus, Arabs, black African tribesmen, and etc all the same. Depending on the power, development, and culture of different peoples, the British modulated their approach.

Needless to say, Brits were most successful with taking over sparsely populated lands and populating them with British men AND BRITISH WOMEN. Women were very important in the success of British colonization cuz they produced more white kids.
Spanish and Portuguese imperialism, in contrast, was mostly male-dominated, so the Hispanic males ended up mixing races with native women, and the product was the mestizo, an ambiguous being of both conquistador and conquered blood.

Brits did best with mostly empty lands settled by British men AND WOMENFOLK. United Stated, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Diversity is going to ruin this great achievement. It's so tragic. Diversity even made London into Afro-Muslimland. I mean WTF.

It's like the Russians were successful in taking Siberia cuz it's mostly vast empty land.
And Chinese were able to grab Tibet and Uighurland cuz they had low population density of backward folks. If Han Chinese wanna keep them, they have to flood them with Chinese men AND WOMENFOLK who will have lots of kibblers.

British had a different approach to savage folks who were numerous enough but not civilized. Take black Africans. Brits could rule over them, but long term prospects were problematic since Brits couldn't produce enough whites in such areas to become the majority.
As for India and parts of SE Asia and Middle East, Brits did come up high civilization(relatively speaking), and Brits treated such people with some degree of respect even as they could be overbearing. It's like the scene in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA where the British officer played by Anthony Quayle show respect to King Feisel.

Now, China was a different matter altogether. Because of its sheer size, the Brits over-estimated its power. It had great respect for Cathay as giant power worthy of respect. So, Brits figure they should just do business and forget about trying to take over China. But when Brits found out that the China had become the sick man of Asia, they got ready to strike. But even after the won the Opium Wars, Brits mostly asked for concessions than outright conquest. Brits wanted to control the ports for increased trade. And even though British clubs kept out the Chiners like Wasp country clubs kept out Jews, they were more than willing to teach the Brits lots of stuff. Watch NOBLE HOUSE. It's got some good stuff on how the Brits operated.
Brits could be ruthless and conniving. But also honorable and trustworthy. You had to know how to read them.

https://youtu.be/QaE9vv5Yhcg?t=37s

Lord O’ Mercy!

Here it is, the 21st century, and we still have apologists for the British empire (and probably also the French, Russian , American and who knows what other ones as well)!

Thanks for taking the time to compose a respectful response, but c’mon, when ya start out with this eye-roller, “There was no single policy for all peoples. All empires adapted to different needs and challenges” how could you expect me to read any further?

If yer gonna take the time to respond, tell us something we wouldn’t otherwise know, please.

"Here it is, the 21st century, and we still have apologists for the British empire"

You have a herd mentality. I don't conform my views to Trends in Thought.

It's like PC says that IN THIS DAY AND AGE, WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE IN REAL.

But race IS real.

Your logic is "PC in the 21st century require us to denounce British Imperialism, so no one better say anything positive."

I would argue that, yes, the Age of Empire is over, and imperialism is a bad idea today. But then, 21st century cults like Diversity and Inclusion are the new imperialisms of the globo-elite kind whereby, as Peggy Noonan says, all elites around the world collude against all masses around the world.

We have to understand and judge British Imperialism in its time. Yes, it created many upheavals and disruptions, but it also opened the world up to whole new possibilities. It spread a revolution in ideas and ways all over the world. Who can deny this?

Brits didn't just conquer and plunder(though they did that too). They built vast networks and educated foreign elites. They offered the blessing of English bread. Even when they plundered, they preserved many treasures in the British Museum.

The Tai Ping rebellion was engineered by the Protestant missionaries (both English and Americans like Issachar Jacox Roberts) in order to weaken China and offer a pretext for Western intervention. The beginning of the Taiping rebellion coincided with 'the opening of Japan' by the gunboats of Commodore Mathew Perry. A secondary effect of the rebellion was an enormous increase in the recruitment of coolis for work in America.

Coolies were not from Japan. You need to stick to your area of knowledge, which I will view with skepticism going forward

Someone mentioned the “pickelhaube,” and I believe it’s worth mentioning that it’s partly a testament to good propaganda that in America it’s almost exclusively associated with the Kaiser and the WW1 German military.

However, those ridiculous showpieces were a part of the US military dress uniform and of others as well. I’ve seen some fine examples on display in the Fort Laramie Museum in Wyoming.

Here’s a link to some pictures of the things. Note particularly the pic with the guy wearing one with a ‘Merkin flag fluttering behind him.

"But there’s no getting away from it that China laid claim on and took over by force the once totally non Han territory of Tibet for strategic reasons to which the wishes of Tibetans were totally irrelevant."

If you care about the Tibetans lobby the Indian government to get the hell out of South Tibet. South Tibet including Tawang, birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama and home to a four hundred years old Tibetan monastery was invaded and annexed by India in 1951, four years after India's creation and is occupied by India to this day. If you cannot located South Tibet on a map it is because it was renamed by India in 1987 to the so called 'Arunachal Pradesh'.

Continued – sorry about the unedited messes …. transported to a convict colony from which they never returned? Should Indians be complaining today about the mercantile and later governmental imperialists who started the disruption of extreme caste discrimination, largely overthrew Muslim rule of Hindus and introduced education in the most useful (by far) language (so far)? No of course sensible ones trade on English language skills, turn old English gentlemen’s clubs into facilities for Indian men and women, rejoice in beating the rest of the old empire at cricket and utter a bit of recently fashionable cant, with no great asperity, about how rich India was when the British arrived. (I haven’t tried to do some complicated calculation involving birth and death rates before and after the beginnings of globalisation and the industrial revolution or how India’s previous wealth was used but it seems to me that, if India wasn’t actually lucky that it was the British who became the dominant predators/organisers on the subcontinent in pre birth control, pre League of Nations, days then it still makes sense to consider that multiplying people post Malthus is a hugely more important phenomenon than anything else. Those interested in allegedly dangerous anthrogenic global warming btw may already be aware of a roughly 60 year cycle in disastrous Indian famines).

As for China’s “century of humiliation”! Maybe a good motivator for something but the prompting to read about the Taiping Rebellion has served as a reminder that British misbehaviour in the 19th. Century was barely a pimple on the arse of the Han people’s collective that mixed long tradition with gross disunity and, at the same time perhaps most fatally, gross conformity and deference to elders.

Here it is, the 21st century, and we still have apologists for the British empire (and probably also the French, Russian , American and who knows what other ones as well)!

Thanks for taking the time to compose a respectful response, but c'mon, when ya start out with this eye-roller, "There was no single policy for all peoples. All empires adapted to different needs and challenges" how could you expect me to read any further?

If yer gonna take the time to respond, tell us something we wouldn't otherwise know, please.

What’s wrong with starting with what the writer hopes will be accepted as a briefly stated truism by way of common premise?

I've noticed this trend; and it also happens when you bring up the Delhi Sultanate or the Mughals. The Indian Muslims obviously like them, but from Sikhs and Hindus you get everything from regarding them as an integral part of Indian history to being hated Turko-Persian invaders. Usually depends on where you ask. I don't like this black-and-white version of history - it distorts facts and is just a bunch of cheer leading. The British were a mixed bag in India; they no doubt had a huge hand in its modernization, but there were also the policies that exacerbated terrible episodes like the famines - even the Irish know about that.

Anyway, I hope people are able to get past their assumptions when facts are presented and learn to be more nuanced in their approach. We can either shout at each other or learn how to prevent being involved in or supporting immoral policies.

Peace.

Numbers count so much. A sample relevant to aspects of this thread. The Irish Famine when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom was partly/largely a result of the population explosion amongst illiterate Irish peasants who had come to depend on the potato (introduced from the Americas by ???). The Brits hadn’t even conceived an adequate welfare state for the multiplying English then.

BTW I visited Mysore (Kannada: Mysuru) recently and was astonished to find that the Muslim sultanate of Tipu was only 15 kilometres away! It was only the Muslim ruler that Sir Arthur Wellesley made his name against wasn’t it?

Not having adequate facilities or forethought may be excusable, actively preventing/discouraging aid efforts is absolutely not:
"Khaleefah Abdul-Majid I, Sultan of an Ottoman Empire centuries past its own prime, was so moved by the Irish plight that he offered £10,000 (the equivalent today of around €1m) to help ease the suffering. Queen Victoria, upon learning of this, requested that he reduce his donation to a more modest £1,000, so as not to embarrass her own relatively meagre offering of £2,000. Reluctantly, the Sultan agreed, but bolstered his contribution by secretly sending five ships loaded with food."
"For the Sultan, “compelled by my religion to observe the laws of hospitality”, empathy overrode any risk. The British fleet attempted a blockade but, according to the story, the Turkish ships made it through the line, sailed up the Boyne and docked in Drogheda to unload their cargo of aid."
http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/turkish-aid-to-irish-famine-was-highest-form-of-compassion-275281.html

Tipu Sultan baby! Lion of Mysore - I have a cousin named after him. He definitely gave the Brits a very, very hard time.

A large factor in the Irish famine was English landlords growing foods for export, which they continued even as the Irish starved to death. The Irish reliance on the potato was due to them having so little land left over for them to grow their own food on.

“The Irish Famine when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom was partly/largely a result of the population explosion amongst illiterate Irish peasants who had come to depend on the potato...”

Blight leading to crop failure was a main factor, exacerbated by Corn Law restrictions on importing grain (protectionism for domestic producers who wanted high prices and to export their crops).

Irish peasant illiteracy should come as no surprise, since 17-18C British restrictions on RCs included prohibitions on purchasing or leasing land, voting, holding political office, living close to towns, obtaining education, and entering a profession.

Thanks. As indicated to Denk (who could learn some old fashioned East Asian civility - OK always a minority specialty as in the land of the British soccer hoolĺigan..) I have just learned something even from his slightly sus link and now I am reminded of India's capacity for obtuseness and worse though rights and wrongs about the borders of India and China don't leap off the page as obvious.

By the way don't you think it is time for most countries and people to drop, as undignified, complaints about the past beyond 100 years plus or minus a few. Should i maintain a chip on my shoulder about the way my Irish and English Catholuc forbears became treated as criminals and transported to a vonvict

Let’s have a look at PB’s opening lament about the $19.3 trillion debt. It is little known that Howard Hughes buried 10 billion ounces of 24 carat gold in a reinforced mountain cave further protected by encryted locking algorithms that the madness of Hughes has been long thought to make undecipherable. However Mr Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto, has found himself with a bit of time on his hands and has cracled it so it is a question now of what becomes of it. Assuming for the moment that the US government owns it what follows? Under what circumstances does that 10 billion ounces remain approx $20 trillion in value? Or even just $1 trillion?

Oh, dear! Someone’s just shut the door again with the key inside and Mr Wright is refusing to come to the party again. What’s wrong with the Treasury just issuing UOUs or gold certificates based on the gold? And we would even have ten year audits to maintain confidence by some of those ex Arthur Anderson highflyers.

If there’s a debt sweepstakes, Reagan wins. The ‘Miracle’ was financed on credit. The debt increased an average of 14%/yr for eight years. Bush Minor’s average was about 7.4%/yr, about the same as Obama.

Numbers count so much. A sample relevant to aspects of this thread. The Irish Famine when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom was partly/largely a result of the population explosion amongst illiterate Irish peasants who had come to depend on the potato (introduced from the Americas by ???). The Brits hadn't even conceived an adequate welfare state for the multiplying English then.

BTW I visited Mysore (Kannada: Mysuru) recently and was astonished to find that the Muslim sultanate of Tipu was only 15 kilometres away! It was only the Muslim ruler that Sir Arthur Wellesley made his name against wasn't it?

Hey WoO,

Not having adequate facilities or forethought may be excusable, actively preventing/discouraging aid efforts is absolutely not:
“Khaleefah Abdul-Majid I, Sultan of an Ottoman Empire centuries past its own prime, was so moved by the Irish plight that he offered £10,000 (the equivalent today of around €1m) to help ease the suffering. Queen Victoria, upon learning of this, requested that he reduce his donation to a more modest £1,000, so as not to embarrass her own relatively meagre offering of £2,000. Reluctantly, the Sultan agreed, but bolstered his contribution by secretly sending five ships loaded with food.”
“For the Sultan, “compelled by my religion to observe the laws of hospitality”, empathy overrode any risk. The British fleet attempted a blockade but, according to the story, the Turkish ships made it through the line, sailed up the Boyne and docked in Drogheda to unload their cargo of aid.”

I have followed up your post and found a much longer and more nuanced account of the excellent modernising Sultan's charitable gesture. The part you emphasise about a blockade appears, as I would expect, to be nonsense (what? the young Queen takes time off having babies to get her PM, Sir Robert Peel, whose government was spending millions on relief, to send frigates to turn away ships with food on them? C'mon!).

You will find an interesting analytical account of related matters in "AramcoWorld: an Irish tale of hunger and the Sultan" that I got to by Googling "Irish famine Turkey".

It seems that an Irish physician in Istanbul may have prompted the Sultan though equally, he may have learned of the disaster as thousands of generous people did around the world and, apart from his apparently admirable character he had a strong interest in keeping the British on side against the Russians.

Although Queen Victoria's donation (even when doubled) seems niggardly even if her government was spending millions on relief it doesn't seem at all likely that she objected to the £10,000 but that the British ambassador or chargé siggested that tact required that the published money amount not embarrass the Queen. She increased her donation, modestly, and the Sultan quietly sent relief in kind as a top up. What puzzles me is where the estimable Prince Albert was in all this. He could have been a worthy mid 19th century somate for that Sultan.

Presumably the webs and hierarchies of middlemen, managers, head tenants and so on were very inflexible instruments for doing anything to divert Ireland's contracted exports of food when the blight struck the potato crops but it is interesting to note that commercial imports of food to Irelamd quickly tripled in response. Quakers were of course amongst the quickest and most effective in supporting relief efforts.

Non-white immigration - legal, illegal, or "refugees" - to the west is the greatest possible threat to Europe, America-Canada and Australia. It is quite literally suicide. Civilizational suicide. Western society requires westerners. A western society can not be composed of Arabs, Pakistanis, Africans, Orientals etc. Rome followed a similar path to destruction; "And physically, large tracts of land were taken over by alien peoples. This showed up a century later in cultural and social disintegration".

Re:Rome ? You could argue the opposite. From Republican times it was Rome’s relative inclusiveness which was one of its greatest strengths.
I suspect your quote refers to the later Empire. My understanding (not great admittedly) is that Rome’s various responses to those people movements were largely forced on them by other circumstances: ie, it’s general inability to cope with all its problems/enemies at any one time.

-----“When efforts to begin negotiations failed,” the encyclopedia reports, “the British, under the command of Maj. Gen. James Macdonald, invaded the country and slaughtered some 600 Tibetans at Guru.-----

Proves my point. 600 dead. Hardly a genocide.

Look, all through history among ALL PEOPLES, when a new order came to take over the old order, there was some degree of violence and fighting. The winning side had to MAKE AN EXAMPLE. Brits made an example. 600 dead was nothing by the standards of those days and I mean AMONG ALL PEOPLES.

I'm not saying it was a good thing. I'm saying it is necessary when one order seeks power over an old one.

Look at the Turkish coup attempt. They killed 100s of people, and more might have died if it had succeed. The purge might have gone the other way, with 10,000 of Erdogan folks sacked. It's like US purged the entire Baath party after invading Iraq.

Imperialism ALWAYS spilled some blood, and this was true of ALL empires through history.

*Proves my point. 600 dead. Hardly a genocide. *

sure brits only killed 600 dogs when they took over diego garcia, hardly a genocide, no big deal !

the brits only killed 1-2m in iraq, not exactly a genocide, its fine with anon.

the brits killed 3m in indonesia, is it good enuff for a genocide ?
but hey thats part and parcel of ‘keeping law and order’, nothing to see here, lets move on.

Yes money or credit as good as money is created in many private transactions but the leaving it to the private sector I referred to could mean no regulation that would prevent the Great South Sea Bubble Bank from creating money on a base of virtually no "capital adequacy" and would mean no lender of last resort.

Yes Congress could choose to legislate for Treasury accounts to be created at the Fed with $100 billion added each year (gross) and those lisbilities on the Fed's balance sheet could presumably be dealt with in a number of ways including treating the Fed as insolvent but allowing it legally to continue in business while insolvent. I am not sure how much difference that would make compared with very long term borrowing at zero real interest. Could it make Congress even less disciplined in its approach to spending?

Yes, I agree. I don’t know how a legislature/executive could be trusted with “money creation”….but they can’t be trusted with the power to borrow either. Ultimately, what’s better for the US in the long run ? Exponential debt growth, and (possible) default or the danger of inflation & a world wide dumping of the dollar ?
Will the US have to massively print one day to pay it’s debts ? Is there a choice/difference between open regulated money creation and sneaky QE “not printing” printing ?

But he got called a 'wog' and got kicked off the train, like in the movie.

British feel bad about that, and Brits now allow immigration to UK to give the 'wogs' a second chance at admiring and emulating British ways. But the Brits act too apologetic now, and the 'wogs' now come mostly for raping teens and praying to Allah or listening to rap.

Yes, Brits did some terrible things to savage folks who sparsely inhabited land that the British wanted.
But the Brits were pretty decent and accommodating to civilized folks. Remember that some British guy wrote Lost Horizon that idealized the Tibetans.

At the very least, the Brits respected one another. In contrast, Mao had 50 million of his countrymen killed.

Also, Brits acted ruthlessly when they needed to keep the order. Mao's Great Leap and Cultural Revolution were mad orgies of total lunacy.

*And British Imperialism only replaced Mughal Imperialism in India.
Indians resented the English but also admired them.*

I totally agree - everyone has skeletons in their closets - and usually, the bigger the empire, the bigger the skeletons - and the Brits had a big one and one of the most recent ones (people are still alive who remember the British Raj) so it's just a matter of time - who brings up Tamerlane much anymore?

But 'just wet their beak' was a bit hyperbolic so I responded.

That paper is indeed interesting on the generally light affects of opium:
"Opium smokers, in short, could moderate their use for personal and social reasons and even cease taking it altogether without help."

That sounds pretty mild and I don't doubt it was in the interests of the Chinese to inflate the issue to get opinion on their side, however, I'm one of those guys who likes to see people put their money where their mouth is. Once I see Britain open up public opium consumption and allow smoking dens, I'll be less skeptical. Otherwise, if we demand the right to ban it, after all the current medical knowledge about it because of our perceptions on detriments to society, then the Chinese (now and then) had a right to assert that - otherwise it's just hypocrisy, no?

Isn’t it time to end the blame game about the past?

I'm all for it - kindly pass the memo to the people constantly bringing up Muslim conquests.

Peace.

I think opium became a problem for the Chinese not so much because it was a killer drug but because Chinese society had become so dreary, desperate, and filled with drudgery(and so decadent for the affluent) that the Chinese took to it like a fatso to donuts.

Chinese society was so constricting and oppressive that people sought an OUT, and opium was it. So, the mental condition/culture of a people affects how they will take to something.

It’s like food. For most of us, donuts are something you have now and then. No problem. But for those with a host of anxieties, they seek comfort in the easy pleasures of food, and donuts become like a drug, and they gorge and gorge and they become major fatkins.

Take marijuana. When I was young, I was under the impression that it was an evil drug that made people totally zonked out like zombies. And in health class, we were told about certain chemicals in pot stays in your system and messes you up, and etc.

In college, I met a bunch of people who smoked that stuff, and I realized it didn’t have this sinister impact on them that I was led to believe it did. They seemed to be normal people who have the habits under control. They used it recreationally on weekends, and some were smart people who did all the school work.

So, maybe opium was overly sensationalized like marijuana in public education.

But even with pot, some people do ruin their lives with it. They don’t use it recreationally now and then but smoke it incessantly like it’s their meaning of life.
The potheads. And some Negroes smoke endlessly. They put pot in blunts(cigars) and smoke that stuff cuz their entire culture is rap and drugs.

So, depending on the personality and attitude, people take to drugs in different ways.
This could be matter of individuality(some individuals are more indulgent than others) or ‘culturality’(some cultures are more desperate for escapism because conditions are so dreary — consider how so many Russians became drunkards under drab and dreary communism).

Bro, all of what you say makes total sense but has nothing to do with my point. If Britain still wants to consider opium banned (in any form) and the Chinese came with navy to shell major ports in order to get the Parliament to concede to their demand to allow them to sell cheap opium in the streets of London - would it be OK to call that action an attempt by the Chinese to 'wet their beaks'?

I think opium became a problem for the Chinese not so much because it was a killer drug but because Chinese society had become so dreary, desperate, and filled with drudgery(and so decadent for the affluent) that the Chinese took to it like a fatso to donuts.

Chinese society was so constricting and oppressive that people sought an OUT, and opium was it. So, the mental condition/culture of a people affects how they will take to something.

It's like food. For most of us, donuts are something you have now and then. No problem. But for those with a host of anxieties, they seek comfort in the easy pleasures of food, and donuts become like a drug, and they gorge and gorge and they become major fatkins.

Take marijuana. When I was young, I was under the impression that it was an evil drug that made people totally zonked out like zombies. And in health class, we were told about certain chemicals in pot stays in your system and messes you up, and etc.

In college, I met a bunch of people who smoked that stuff, and I realized it didn't have this sinister impact on them that I was led to believe it did. They seemed to be normal people who have the habits under control. They used it recreationally on weekends, and some were smart people who did all the school work.

So, maybe opium was overly sensationalized like marijuana in public education.

But even with pot, some people do ruin their lives with it. They don't use it recreationally now and then but smoke it incessantly like it's their meaning of life.
The potheads. And some Negroes smoke endlessly. They put pot in blunts(cigars) and smoke that stuff cuz their entire culture is rap and drugs.

So, depending on the personality and attitude, people take to drugs in different ways.
This could be matter of individuality(some individuals are more indulgent than others) or 'culturality'(some cultures are more desperate for escapism because conditions are so dreary -- consider how so many Russians became drunkards under drab and dreary communism).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dp2edinjHg

Bro, all of what you say makes total sense but has nothing to do with my point. If Britain still wants to consider opium banned (in any form) and the Chinese came with navy to shell major ports in order to get the Parliament to concede to their demand to allow them to sell cheap opium in the streets of London – would it be OK to call that action an attempt by the Chinese to ‘wet their beaks’?

"Bro, all of what you say makes total sense but has nothing to do with my point. If Britain still wants to consider opium banned (in any form) and the Chinese came with navy to shell major ports in order to get the Parliament to concede to their demand to allow them to sell cheap opium in the streets of London – would it be OK to call that action an attempt by the Chinese to ‘wet their beaks’?"

I say the point is relevant to what you're saying.

We need to ask WHICH BRITAIN?

In the past, Great Britain used to be a far more orderly, hierarchical, and mannered society. It had lots of inhibitions. There was a culture of shame. I read that when Beatles smoked pot, they always made sure George Martin the producer wasn't around. So, even as they were giving over to escapism and hedonism, they still inhibited and somewhat ashamed. They felt Martin, their senior, was due some respect.

So, in that kind of Britain, certain drugs might have been used more carefully and with restraint. As such, the harm would have been limited as any kind of excessive behavior would have been frowned upon.

But look at today's Britain. It's so full of permissive trashy ugly hideousness. Shame is gone from many communities where people get ass tattoos, piercings, and only know punk or rap music. People use words far worse than 'bloody'. They eat to excess and grow whale-size fat. No shame, no propriety, no nothing but Clockworkorange soullessness.

In this kind of society, even relatively milder drugs could be used excessively and lead to harm. It's like a sober and responsible person can handle even a bazooka properly and keep it safe. But a wild and indulgent nut can kill himself with a little handgun.

The British first came to China humbly and with respect. It only wanted to trade. It was buying a lot of tea, and wanted China to buy some stuff in return.

And Brits were offering top-notch technology and all sorts of stuff the Chiners could have bought, emulated, and etc.

But the Chinese acted awful high and mighty and told the Brits to get lost.

Yes, the opium sales were bad, but the Brits realized it and stopped the sales out of shame.

Also, maybe opium wasn't AS BAD as some claimed.

I mean the British sold the smoking kind(that relaxed Noodles in Once Upon a Time in America), not the terrible heroin derivative.

http://www.frankdikotter.com/publications/the-myth-of-opium.pdf

Isn't it time to end the blame game about the past?

All these 'you guys were worst' and 'boo hoo, we are so sorry'.

Enuff already.

https://theamericanscholar.org/apologies-all-around/

As I understand it the demand for tea in Britain resulted in a great depletion of silver used to pay for it. The introduction of opium was the device used to create addicts only too willing to pay silver and readdress the silver deficit.

Nicely put especially 'much of the wilderness our forefathers tackled was of a much harsher variety than that found in many other areas of the New World. On paper they should have had a much harder time'. I expect most people never give the early years of colonial America a thought but the truth is so remarkable one has to wonder at the determination of the people back then.

Indeed. I’ve criss-crossed the US in every direction, many times (those were the days – on tour- sigh ;0) and never failed to wonder what manner of men (and women) crossed this land into the unknown in covered wagons.

Likewise, to go out into the Australian wilderness (bush) and you get a sense of how hard it must have been for the pioneers. One can’t help coming away with greater respect for the aborigines also who survived for millennia in a landscape that frequently kills europeans in just a few days when their cars break down.

Numbers count so much. A sample relevant to aspects of this thread. The Irish Famine when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom was partly/largely a result of the population explosion amongst illiterate Irish peasants who had come to depend on the potato (introduced from the Americas by ???). The Brits hadn't even conceived an adequate welfare state for the multiplying English then.

BTW I visited Mysore (Kannada: Mysuru) recently and was astonished to find that the Muslim sultanate of Tipu was only 15 kilometres away! It was only the Muslim ruler that Sir Arthur Wellesley made his name against wasn't it?

A large factor in the Irish famine was English landlords growing foods for export, which they continued even as the Irish starved to death. The Irish reliance on the potato was due to them having so little land left over for them to grow their own food on.

Yes but much more. See #228. I think Malthusian overpopulation was still at full speed on what had been easily sufficient land to support the population of 50 years earlier. In England conditions in the overpopulated cities probably did much the same as the famine but by disease and malnutrition rather than starvation spread out over more years. The Highland clearances come to mind as a comparable source of immigrants but I don't recall hunger playing a big part.